Donald Sterling in hot water

[NoSaint]

 

I think they were just covering their own ass. I don't believe what he said was true, but I understand why he said it. It makes the statement that it is intolerable for anyone saying this kind of stuff, even if it is a one time thing. And it allows the owners to say that this is a recurring thing that is no longer tolerable, so that it doesn't set a precedent. It's all calculated to get a desired effect. I don't believe Silver though. I do think he is well within his jurisdiction to do what he did without the earlier allegations. But he is deflecting the responsibility of his predecessors and himself for not doing anything about it. Then it gets into grey areas.

 

I understand, and was mostly clarifying that I heard the quote properly (had TV on while doing something else) before I made the similar next steps.

 

 

[Rob's House]

 

 

Not sure that it matters in the bigger picture, but after the Bundy episode earlier this week, right wingers were all gleeful to find out that Sterling donated money to Democratic candidates back in the early 1990's... a few here in this thread have also referenced his political affiliations... so apparently it is of significance to them. The ones who think that the POTUS is the root of all evil... so, I just wanted to set the record straight, so we could ditch that tired, false, argument.

 

 

I see so many here defending Sterling...saying he did nothing wrong, but then making the argument that his punishment was "too harsh". So which is it? Did he do something wrong (apparently his peers think he did), or should he receive no punishment?

 

Personally I don't see any rational basis for punishment in the first place. I can understand a dissociation for business or personal reasons, but how do you justify punishment for a politically incorrect thought?

[Deranged Rhino]

Personally I don't see any rational basis for punishment in the first place. I can understand a dissociation for business or personal reasons, but how do you justify punishment for a politically incorrect thought?

You justify it by pointing to your bottom line. It's about the money.

[Rob's House]

You justify it by pointing to your bottom line. It's about the money.

 

Dude, you just don't get it. There's a difference between dissociating with someone for business reasons and punishing them. How do you justify punishment on that basis?

[NDBUFFCUSEFAN]

Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the league, he knows the procedures for penalizing owners and yet he still couldn't hide his bigotry for a few more years. He knew he was being taped so there goes that stupid argument that I keep seeing.

 

I thought a one year ban, $1 million fine and some community service would be a reasonable penalty but it looks like Silver couldn't resist the head shot. I am sure after watching Sterling act like a buffoon for all these years it was like a gift from the heavens to get rid of him less than a year after taking over.

[Rob's House]

Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the league, he knows the procedures for penalizing owners and yet he still couldn't hide his bigotry for a few more years. He knew he was being taped so there goes that stupid argument that I keep seeing.

 

I thought a one year ban, $1 million fine and some community service would be a reasonable penalty but it looks like Silver couldn't resist the head shot. I am sure after watching Sterling act like a buffoon for all these years it was like a gift from the heavens to get rid of him less than a year after taking over.

 

What does it matter whether he knew he was being taped? (and do we know that for sure or is that just something we've heard?) You're condoning penalizing thought. Not a crime, not an act, not even a public statement; a thought. Taped or not that's no different from your wife, friend, brother, coming out and telling people about an unpopular opinion you hold and you being penalized. Doesn't that bother you? Isn't that bigger than an 80 year old guy being worried about what his racist friends think about his girlfriend commiserating with black people?

[NDBUFFCUSEFAN]

What does it matter whether he knew he was being taped? (and do we know that for sure or is that just something we've heard?) You're condoning penalizing thought. Not a crime, not an act, not even a public statement; a thought. Taped or not that's no different from your wife, friend, brother, coming out and telling people about an unpopular opinion you hold and you being penalized. Doesn't that bother you? Isn't that bigger than an 80 year old guy being worried about what his racist friends think about his girlfriend commiserating with black people?

 

From what I have read I would conclude that he knew, those who have heard the entire tape have confirmed it and when I see it mentioned again I will link the article.

 

NBA ownership is obviously a lot different than any other job, he is held to a higher level of conduct than Joe the plumber and if his actions lead to the league losing money then the owners have every right to kick him out of the club. The woman is also a POS for releasing this but it doesn't change what he said and the effects it could have on the league as a whole if he wasn't punished severely.

[boyst]

It's obvious they are both racist. That's like saying "they were both said in the English language." It's self-evident.

 

That is not at all what you're saying. You're saying that all racism is the same, you said it repeatedly, and it's not. In any way.

 

Is it all wrong? No. I say racist **** all the time. Everyone does. Most of it is a joke. ALL of it needs to be taken within context, knowing the history of the person and other essential elements. There are intentions and degrees, which make it wrong or not, offensive or not. A LOT of that falls under the opinion category, if not all of it. But to say racism is racism is the height of ignorance.

 

 

And what you also said is that you are surprised this is even news. The biggest punishment in the history of sport is surprising to you that it's even news, because racism is racism; ignorance is ignorance.

 

Ignorance is clearly not ignorance.

I was on my tablet and it's hard to post anything on there. All racism is the same, it is racism. You pretty much said it yourself, all racism is racism. That's the only point I am trying to make. And, what you are not seeing and you are forgetting is simple. This is my opinion. So I will try again.

 

To me a little tiny bit of racism is just as bad as a whole lot of racism. Whether you say "the guy following me was black so I walked faster" or "Kroger was sold out of watermellon, I guess there is a black family reunion," or "kill all _____." It's all the same thing.

 

Now you're saying racist jokes and remarks are different because of their context. That's entirely different - but it is still racist. I am the king of racist remarks, lewd remarks, and innuendo. In the work place I make more wise cracks to my best friend then I make worthwhile statements or talk about the work environment. Does he think I am racist? No. Did he think I am racist when I said the punishment was not just? No. He disagreed and said it was fair because you can't just talk like that about people.

 

Further, I cannot believe this is news because it shouldn't be news. This situation has been going on for far too long for some reason and someone should have put him in his place to remind him how stupid he is but that's just it. this was a private conversation behind closed doors with a trusted person who threw him under the Goodyear blimp. Yep, the story is a bunch of hot air. He should be free to think and say whatever he wants behind closed doors. When the door slips open he should be judged fittingly but to punish him - like this?! It's a joke.

[Rob's House]

From what I have read I would conclude that he knew, those who have heard the entire tape have confirmed it and when I see it mentioned again I will link the article.

 

NBA ownership is obviously a lot different than any other job, he is held to a higher level of conduct than Joe the plumber and if his actions lead to the league losing money then the owners have every right to kick him out of the club. The woman is also a POS for releasing this but it doesn't change what he said and the effects it could have on the league as a whole if he wasn't punished severely.

 

But he's not being ousted for conduct. He's being ousted for his opinion. I'm not even saying the NBA doesn't have the right (I haven't read the bylaws to know if he can be removed without cause), but I think the line that because he's rich and an NBA owner that his personal opinions (again, not public declarations) are somehow fair game for penalization is a disturbing standard. I hope no one ever learns that you once said something offensive in private and uses it to destroy you.

[boyst]

NBA ownership is obviously a lot different than any other job, he is held to a higher level of conduct than Joe the plumber and if his actions lead to the league losing money then the owners have every right to kick him out of the club. The woman is also a POS for releasing this but it doesn't change what he said and the effects it could have on the league as a whole if he wasn't punished severely.

I'd say, Joe the Plumber got a job for Jeep (IIRC) or some other Union job, and now is a card carrying member of a Union. Union members can get away with murder.

[Hplarrm]

 

 

Dude, you just don't get it. There's a difference between dissociating with someone for business reasons and punishing them. How do you justify punishment on that basis?

 

They are the same thing in this case. If the NBA team owners want to successfully do business hear then reality simply demands they punish Sterling for his idiocy.

 

Money talks and everything else walks in this case.

 

It used to be that it did not impact one's ability to make big bucks even if you had racist thought or took even somewhat overt racist actions.

 

Society has progressed and one can no longer take racist acts and make entertainment money.

 

I think society is better off (and more fair) than it used to be. Don't you agree.

[Deranged Rhino]

Dude, you just don't get it. There's a difference between dissociating with someone for business reasons and punishing them. How do you justify punishment on that basis?

It's not punishment. It's the consequences of his violating the terms of his own league's bylaws. What you're suggesting is that anytime someone is fired for violating their moral turpitude clause, it's punishment and thus not justified. That's simply incorrect.

[Rob's House]

It's not punishment. It's the consequences of his violating the terms of his own league's bylaws. What you're suggesting is that anytime someone is fired for violating their moral turpitude clause, it's punishment and thus not justified. That's simply incorrect.

 

You're conflating the issues again. I was specifically addressing people suggesting what his punishment should be.

 

As to the bylaws, I haven't read them but I'm curious what bylaw was violated.

 

And to the moral turpitude clause, I feel like I'm arguing with a wall. Those clauses are usually reserved to conduct, acts, or crimes. I can't think of a single example of someone being held to have violated a moral turpitude clause on account of an opinion shared with one's significant other. Can you think of any analogous situations?

 

I know you think a rich guy holding prejudicial views is one of the greatest threats mankind faces, but I tend to think you're having an emotional reaction based on your gut feeling about racism that is associated with real atrocities like slavery and Jim Crow rather than being a reasoned position based on any logical deductions you've made.

[NoSaint]

 

It's not punishment. It's the consequences of his violating the terms of his own league's bylaws. What you're suggesting is that anytime someone is fired for violating their moral turpitude clause, it's punishment and thus not justified. That's simply incorrect.

He's getting at the difference between actions or public statements, vs private conversation that someone else leaks. It's an interesting topic, if you can put aside the obvious (and well earned) distaste for sterling.

[The Big Cat]

 

 

You're conflating the issues again. I was specifically addressing people suggesting what his punishment should be.

 

As to the bylaws, I haven't read them but I'm curious what bylaw was violated.

 

And to the moral turpitude clause, I feel like I'm arguing with a wall. Those clauses are usually reserved to conduct, acts, or crimes. I can't think of a single example of someone being held to have violated a moral turpitude clause on account of an opinion shared with one's significant other. Can you think of any analogous situations?

 

I know you think a rich guy holding prejudicial views is one of the greatest threats mankind faces, but I tend to think you're having an emotional reaction based on your gut feeling about racism that is associated with real atrocities like slavery and Jim Crow rather than being a reasoned position based on any logical deductions you've made.

 

He should have been canned, period. He's not a company man whose house was bugged while he told racist jokes to his friend, he's a team OWNER of a corporate and media driven league that's comprised of mostly blacks. You're treating the private conversation as if it's a black and white issue (no pun intended). It's not. It's an extremely nuanced, extraordinary set of circumstances.

 

That said, between this dickhead and the bozo thief out in Nevada, I long for the day when these super rich racist white guys finally run their course. Theirs is a dying breed, thank god.

 

THAT said, as a society we need to stop thinking in terms of progress toward racism eradication. That ain't gonna happen, and we should be grappling with more constructive, realistic ways of dealing with the issue of race.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

You're conflating the issues again. I was specifically addressing people suggesting what his punishment should be.

Hogwash, you're running from my points. You're argument, unless I'm completely misreading them (which I apologize if I am) is that the NBA has no right to "punish" Sterling by forcing him out. And I'm saying, that belief is 100% incorrect according to the NBA lawyers, bylaws and the commissioner. They have the ability to do this because of terms Sterling himself agreed to when he bought an NBA franchise.

 

 

As to the bylaws, I haven't read them but I'm curious what bylaw was violated.

 

And to the moral turpitude clause, I feel like I'm arguing with a wall. Those clauses are usually reserved to conduct, acts, or crimes. I can't think of a single example of someone being held to have violated a moral turpitude clause on account of an opinion shared with one's significant other. Can you think of any analogous situations?

And a man, repeating an hour's worth of racial superiority and demeaning an entire race of people, a large percentage of whom he employs, is a violation of conduct and an act that endangers the NBA as a whole. It's why those clauses are in there. How many news stories do you have to read about people who get fired because of stuff they post on their Facebook wall or twitter? It happens a lot.

 

You're way off here. You're dancing around the issue and inventing new ones when faced with the reality of the situation. The guy did this to himself, he violated a contract he signed, and the NBA is within their rights to follow their own rules and bylaws to have him removed. Just because you don't like it, or don't agree, doesn't mean they are doing something beyond the pale.

 

 

I know you think a rich guy holding prejudicial views is one of the greatest threats mankind faces, but I tend to think you're having an emotional reaction based on your gut feeling about racism that is associated with real atrocities like slavery and Jim Crow rather than being a reasoned position based on any logical deductions you've made.

It's easy for you to say that when you ignore the logical arguments I'm presenting. You think this is coming from an emotional response, it's not. The public outcry opened people's eyes to this man's long, and distinguished history of being a dickhead and spoke up loudly proclaiming they would not support the NBA with their dollars if a change wasn't made. That's all that happened.

 

He's getting at the difference between actions or public statements, vs private conversation that someone else leaks. It's an interesting topic, if you can put aside the obvious (and well earned) distaste for sterling.

But the difference is irrelevant in this specific case. And any attempt to argue otherwise is done by people who want to keep on enabling racism in this country... or by people who really do not know what they're talking about.

[Rob's House]

Hogwash, you're running from my points. You're argument, unless I'm completely misreading them (which I apologize if I am) is that the NBA has no right to "punish" Sterling by forcing him out. And I'm saying, that belief is 100% incorrect according to the NBA lawyers, bylaws and the commissioner. They have the ability to do this because of terms Sterling himself agreed to when he bought an NBA franchise.

 

 

And a man, repeating an hour's worth of racial superiority and demeaning an entire race of people, a large percentage of whom he employs, is a violation of conduct and an act that endangers the NBA as a whole. It's why those clauses are in there. How many news stories do you have to read about people who get fired because of stuff they post on their Facebook wall or twitter? It happens a lot.

 

You're way off here. You're dancing around the issue and inventing new ones when faced with the reality of the situation. The guy did this to himself, he violated a contract he signed, and the NBA is within their rights to follow their own rules and bylaws to have him removed. Just because you don't like it, or don't agree, doesn't mean they are doing something beyond the pale.

 

 

It's easy for you to say that when you ignore the logical arguments I'm presenting. You think this is coming from an emotional response, it's not. The public outcry opened people's eyes to this man's long, and distinguished history of being a dickhead and spoke up loudly proclaiming they would not support the NBA with their dollars if a change wasn't made. That's all that happened.

 

 

But the difference is irrelevant in this specific case. And any attempt to argue otherwise is done by people who want to keep on enabling racism in this country... or by people who really do not know what they're talking about.

 

I just addressed most of this in the PPP thread, so I'm not going to do it all again here except to say that 1. you are completely misreading my points, 2. I didn't hear anything on that tape that resembles what you just described, and 3. Is there a bylaw that prohibits all private thoughts that diverge from the accepted politically correct views on race, and if not, which one did he violate?

 

I'm out til tomorrow.

[Kelly the Dog]

You're conflating the issues again. I was specifically addressing people suggesting what his punishment should be.

 

As to the bylaws, I haven't read them but I'm curious what bylaw was violated.

 

And to the moral turpitude clause, I feel like I'm arguing with a wall. Those clauses are usually reserved to conduct, acts, or crimes. I can't think of a single example of someone being held to have violated a moral turpitude clause on account of an opinion shared with one's significant other. Can you think of any analogous situations?

 

I know you think a rich guy holding prejudicial views is one of the greatest threats mankind faces, but I tend to think you're having an emotional reaction based on your gut feeling about racism that is associated with real atrocities like slavery and Jim Crow rather than being a reasoned position based on any logical deductions you've made.

Black people being half a person is "a reasoned position based on logical deductions you've made?"

[papazoid]

Fans bring wonderful Donald Sterling signs to Warriors-Clippers

 

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/4/27/5658952/donald-sterling-signs-warriors-clippers

[NoSaint]

 

 

I just addressed most of this in the PPP thread, so I'm not going to do it all again here except to say that 1. you are completely misreading my points, 2. I didn't hear anything on that tape that resembles what you just described, and 3. Is there a bylaw that prohibits all private thoughts that diverge from the accepted politically correct views on race, and if not, which one did he violate?

 

I'm out til tomorrow.

 

If anyones claiming to be confident on the contents of the nba by laws and constitution they are perhaps overreaching a little. Until yesterday afternoon they had never been available to the public. I imagine the nba had a full legal team work on this, but last night I heard Lester Munson the espn legal talking head discussing that this would be taking a very aggressive reading of a few of the clauses and then pushing the bounds of how you could act on it and that he expected this to potentially be in court a long time because it's not totally clear (as I said though, he's only had access to them for a few hours when he made the comments).