Clippers Owner Banned for Life

a reply to: totallackey

Tell me how excluding anybody from anything is acting in a rational manner? Everyone here is up in arms about Sterling stating he wanted to exclude others on the basis of skin color...and your enlightened solution is to do the same thing to him? Sounds moronic to me...

So moral relativism then. Here's a hypothetical scenario: lets say you see a kid being bullied in your classroom. Should you prevent the bullier from "acting the way he wants" just as everyone else in the class acts in the way they want? Or is there a moral responsibility on your part to prevent the aggressive and bullying kid from acting in detrimental ways towards vulnerable children? In this analogy, a discrimination is made between his actions and the actions of other kids. His actions impinge on the wellbeing of other kids. Whereas the actions of other kids do not.

In this situation, the mentality and views of Donald Sterling impinge on the dignity of the people he works with. Now that the NBA has become aware of Donald Sterlings views, it is understandable that no one wants to do business with him.

But sure. The situation is this. You are the person commonly referred to as Jesus. Last I checked, he was holding up his end of the bargain, at least according to the Gospels...

What happened to him?

Were not living in Roman times anymore. Read Marshall Mcluhan, or Jeremy Rifkin. You need to understand that the psychology of man in the 21st century in not the same as that of man in 33 AD. Technology shapes our awareness. Have you ever heard the phrase "the medium is the message'? This means the that the medium ACTUALLY shapes how we understand the world around us over time. It shapes our perspective, because the medium is a mode of relating with the world. Soon enough the medium determines the way we understand things, because it is the main technology of the day.

We live in a world today where things are open and known. This is what an open internet does for the world: it enables democracy at a truly personal level. Everyone has access. Anytime a major injustice or indiscretion occurs, its on the net a second later, and the whole freaking planet can no about it. In ancient times, conversely, people were curtailed and inhibited by the technological limitations of it's day. The idea of lateral power between individuals didn't exist: there was only the bureaucratic pyramidal structure; abuses could be concealed because knowledge couldn't be passed along inefficiently. There were no smart-phones to take pictures of abuses. There was not such a ridiculous proliferation of knowledge as exists today, thanks to Wikipedia and the internet. People, in short, are far more sophisticated, and thus self aware, then they were 200 years ago.

Jesus was no doubt a remarkably self aware man. And I imagine he would have supported the need to censure someone when acting or not acting shapes the cultural narrative - and thus how people are apt to see things.

The media have made a show of Donald Sterling: and that is exactly the point. We can't expect to see changes in our culture unless our culture and the people with the power to influence it use their power in a mindful and circumspect way.

I do not believe in your ideology. I think allegiance to any strict ideology is mindlessness and a basic failure in reason. The world isn't that simple. It doesn't fit snuggly into your ideology. Denying a vicious racist participation doesn't bode ill for civil rights. This issue was very clear: there was very little "gray area". Donald Sterling see's the world in a remarkably ignorant way. And denying him participation as an owner in the NBA is something that should not be confused as an omen for future "abuses".

Jesus taught a morality that Buddah, and Confucius, also taught. The golden rule - a rule being upheld in this context - is not tantamount to what the Nazis and Soviets did. Not every act of public obloquy is inherently wrong.

It seems you are the moral relativist...you want to exclude Sterling because of what he said...he wanted to exclude people for his own reasons...

You don't seem to understand what moral relativism is. I'm holding to a basic principle of human relations: the golden principle. This is a categorical idea for me. It's a fact of human relations and of human psychology that people want to be connected with, respected, and valued by others.

You on the other have made the ridiculous equivalence between my exclusion of him and his exclusion of black people. This is the quintessential moral relativist perspective.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
This is going to get interesting. If he loses the franchise, his girlfriend is going to be up a creek, as he can then turn around and sue her for the lose of the franchise.

While he is banned, something tells me he is not going to lay down so easily, and will probably fight it to the bitter, end, especially if he is able to retain the team, as he could then argue that if he can not have a say in the team management or the franchise, he could tie up the players money for years in court.

she has nothing but what he gave her and not nearly enough for his compensation of his franchise.

this is just hysteria.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I have no real comments on this story other than that Sterling is an idiot. And his wife seems to be a gold digger.

There is a whole deeper social discussion that could be had, but likely won't.

she is not his wife of 50yrs.

it's his gal pal.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

Coming from a league that suspended one of its very best players for a period of only two years (covering it up under the guise of retirement) for gambling on basketball games and, as a result, members of his own family threatened and his father getting killed for failing to pay the gambling debt...

This is a conspiracy site. Some conspiracy and cover ups are real yet so outrageous that no one will believe them.

I've heard this before. There are sealed FBI files about Jordan, gambling debts and his father's murder. MJ 'retired' because at that time he was the face of the NBA. A public suspension would have ruined the NBA and the revenue stream MJ brings.

This is not "wrong on so many levels". The fact that people refer to a piece of paper written so long ago that should justify the words of a completely ignorant man astonishes me. How can we expect to move forward as a human race if we are constantly kept behind by our history.

If you want to speak lawfully, Silver had every right to ban Sterling. He is a part of a business who's reputation was damaged by his actions. It was not the NBA who recorded or released the tape, and Sterling confessed to being the one on it. The only person who should be worried about legal action is Sterling's at-the-time girlfriend (Gold-digger), who recorded him without consent.

It's time for ignorance to stop.

1. His 1st Amendment Rights Were Violated! - No they were not. He is not being thrown in jail or otherwise persecuted by the government for his views.

2. It Was A Private Conversation! - Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn't. I haven't looked at the evidence. This is irrelevant because his views are out there now. Did his mistress have ulterior motives? Probably, but that doesn't make what he said acceptable in a civilized society.

3. People Have Been Making Racist Comments In Response! - I have not had the chance to see what Snoop Dog or anyone else has had to say in response. What Charles Barkley said was not racist. He was describing how players in the league are predominantly black, and that was taken out of context in a weird attempt to deflect from what Sterling said. If any racist comments were made, I am 100% against those as well. This still does not excuse what happened.

4. If A Black Person Made Comments Like This, It Wouldn't Be An Issue! - Perhaps, but myself and many others would be just as outraged. I'm positive any organization would act in a similar way. If they didn't, then that would be reprehensible. Still doesn't make Sterling's comments okay.

5. They Can't Make Him Pay A Fine And Sell His Team! - They probably can. It wouldn't even be on the table if there was no legal ground to stand on. Correct me if I am wrong, but I always assumed the teams were franchises with the NBA being the parent company. There are probably bylaws and stipulations in the contract he signed when he bought the team.

6. He Got A Lifetime Achievement Award From The NAACP, He Can't Be A Racist! - He could have bought them off in an attempt to hide his racism. The NAACP may have just needed a wealthy donor that bad. This doesn't change what he said or change his track record of this type of behavior. I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that Obama got a Nobel Prize. Organizations can be corrupt.

7. This Is Going To Be Another Way People Take Over Businesses! - Not really, but other industries are structured in a similar way to the NBA, so it is possible in certain cases. Explain how small businesses and others could be taken over in this way.

8. It Isn't A Big Deal. Can We Just Let This Go Away? - An utterly arrogant argument. Who are you to say what should and should not offend people? It obviously was a big deal to enough people to force the NBA to take action.



Is there anything I forgot?

a reply to: ArtemisE

White people should demand Charles Barkley be banned also for his racist comments on air. Fair is far........Ya right.




The blacks living in America for the most part are all still slaves. They are slaves to ideals and stereotypes that should have been dealt with 40 years ago. When the going gets hard Black leaders including the President do exactly the opposite of what is needed to end this crap.



I wonder what my personal hero Mr. King would say at a time like this. When will the people wake up and get some real leaders. It shows just how heavy the chains of slavery are when they choose to listen to scum bags like snoop dogg.

a reply to: phinubian

a reply to: DarthOej

You two guys nailed it and summed it up perfectly. No doubt these are the two best posts in this thread. After reading both, I really can't see why this is even debatable any more.

@DarthOej: lol at that Charles Barkley deflection because that's exactly what that was. Capital fail in that regard.

I read through 2 pages... Didn't see anyone comment on this... OK so, his GF was hanging out with Magic Johnson one night then the next night she records Sterling being all racist. Magic then calls him the next morning and offers on his team, Sterling says no, the recording comes out. This might not be the exact way things went down but it is what happened. Guys an ass and always has been. This time someone took advantage of his assness.

a reply to: combatmaster

Racism on both sides? The minority side of that pitch is usually countering racism or being vocal because they might feel wronged, that group generally in most instances are not propagating superiority or pushing the agenda of others being inferior or seeking privilege beyond simply being seen as equal, that sir is the oldest trick in the book, accuse the accuser or malign the accuser by classifying them as racist for speaking out and expressing their view , that is counter to being racist, I guarantee you that people that apply your thinking will always view, say a Magic Johnson or any of the players that are being vocal about this or making their feelings known will be put incorrectly put into the racist, race card puller and race baiter category, simply for speaking out about this nonsense.

We know that a racist has no leg to stand on when they get exposed so this tactic or thinking is their only out, that is also to detract or direct attention away from themselves and blame others.

The racist see themselves as better, the minority seek to remove this thinking or at least change those views and only want to be viewed as an equal, until those who cannot see the difference between two sides, those who think they are superior as opposed to those think they are equal it will be difficult to achieve true equality, it will all be on paper only.

V. Stiviano, the woman whom Donald Sterling was talking to when he made racist remarks, is "very saddened" by his lifetime NBA ban, and she didn't release the recording of their conversation, her lawyer said Tuesday.

Stiviano "never wanted any harm to Donald," Siamak Nehoray of Calabasas told the Los Angeles Times

Somebody released it "for money," but it wasn't Stiviano, the attorney said.

"My client is devastated that this got out," he said.

Nehoray previously said the recording posted online is a snippet of a conversation lasting roughly an hour.

Link

originally posted by: KawRider9
This is wrong on soooo many levels.

Freedom of speech?

She did'nt have consent to record him.

I see many lawsuits comming!

NO IT IS NOT WRONG

this was a man who basically talked of these players like he was a plantation owner.

second, the girl claims sterling DID consent to being recorded because he would forget things(but let's say you are right and she didn't)

THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE GOT CAUGHT RED HANDED

this place is unbelievable sometimes, it was within the NBA bylaws, and poor ol bigot donald will still get almost a billion dollars for having to sell the team

some of you have a warped concept of freedom of speech, the NBA and many other organizations have rules for conduct, donald sterling violated them.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
CBS NBA Bans Sterling For Life

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced Tuesday Clippers owner Donald Sterling will be suspended for life and fined $2.5 million in wake of his alleged racist remarks.

Silver spoke to the press at 11 a.m. news conference from New York, stating he will “do everything in my power” to force sale of Clipper.

Banned for life over 'alleged' comments.
And the NBC Commissioner will try to 'force the sale' of the Clippers.

they are NOT alleged comments
the tapes were authentic by elite attorneys

it is so funny to me to see some here defend cliven bundy's racist ass, then in the other thread try and call barkley a racist....HILARIOUS, wake up people

Free speech is free speech, also other people can change their "leader" whenever they want.

There is nothing wrong here.

This is work, supervisors get fired for many reason, including discriminating employees under them by their skin colour.

He did it at home, too bad it got recorded, but one can't say he won't hold that prejudice when he makes decision on the field.

Rich men, keep your women in check.

originally posted by: jrod
This is outrageous. The NBA is an American association and while no one agrees with what the Clipper's owner said, they should respect his 1st Amendment Rights. Let the fans boycott the team or his players walk out. This ban is nothing but a PR move the NBA pulled to satisfy their fans.

I think this is a case where the media took a minor story, ran with it because it brings out the race emotion card. I feel like if a black NBA team older told his mistress that she can't bring white guys to the game this would never even made the news.

they don't need to respect his 1st amendment rights. that's why they are kicking him to the gutter....well, a half-billion dollar gutter

the fact that there are people here defending this piece of dog excrement, says a lot about other threads that have been posted

a reply to: CoolStoryMan

Yes, she "claims" she had consent. She also "claims" she did'nt give TMZ the tape. Untill I see proof that he gave consent, I'm gonna doubt her "claims".

I'm not defending what this racist prick said, I am defending our rights to speek openly in the comfort of our homes without fear of penalties.

I'll ask again, I've said some bad things inside my house. Should I be fined and forced to sell my business because someone recorded what I said?

This whole deal has been blown waaaay out of purportion. Lawsuits will be filed and I have a feeling this racist prick will make even more money. Shoulda left this one alone. It's going to make this racist billionare more money and more racist. Good call justice seekers...

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: CoolStoryMan

Yes, she "claims" she had consent. She also "claims" she did'nt give TMZ the tape. Untill I see proof that he gave consent, I'm gonna doubt her "claims".
I'm not defending what this racist prick said, I am defending our rights to speek openly in the comfort of our homes without fear of penalties.

I think what she did on the moral ground(ironic)is a whole another issue, and should be dealt separately.

I'll ask again, I've said some bad things inside my house. Should I be fined and forced to sell my business because someone recorded what I said?

Of course not, people say many things, my parents since grade 5 told me to not hang around kids of certain colours etc. but my mom does not own a group of players that are more famous than an average citizen, and been watched by millions of people.

You think people would care if that remark came from a normal guy? The thing about famous people, they get spot light, whether good or bad.

This whole deal has been blown waaaay out of purport-ion. Lawsuits will be filed and I have a feeling this racist prick will make even more money. Shoulda left this one alone. It's going to make this racist billionaire more money and more racist. Good call justice seekers...

On the other hand we don't do anything and let things continue as if racism and his remarks does not exist,which wont create any media frenzy but keeps racism alive or we can bring it to light and create more closet racists.

this guy should have been kicked out of the NBA when he refused to rent to black people, in the apartments he owned. he was convicted in a court of law for that. that didn't hurt the NBA's bottom line, so no big deal...but now, we're talking some real money that the NBA and other owners would lose, if they don't kick him out.....he broke the only law known to the wealthy.........he would make them lose money, an unpardonable crime.

a reply to: jimmyx

Allright then. Should we then demand they force the racist Jay-Z sell the Nets? He is a confirmed black supremacist.
He offends me . He is even out in public flaunting jewelry from a hate group. A lot of his "songs" if they can really be called that are racist in nature.

How is that any different? Oh, right he is black, therefore he can not be racist right?

As far as this prick that owns the clippers, No, his first amendment rights do not matter in the slightest. The NBA contracts govern the league. If 2/3 of the owners vote him out, then he is gone. There is nothing criminal they can charge him with. He can not charge them with anything criminal. Now, as far as the GF goes. If the recording was done without his PERMISSION, not knowledge, but permission. Then criminally, she can be charged with a misdemeanor. Civilly, he could sue her for 3 times the actual damages. So she may have just stepped in the proverbial poop.