Clippers Series Distraction - Soon To Be Moved To Another Forum
Posted 28 April 2014 - 12:17 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that the ideals of free speech or freedom of expression are only brought up in the defense of something that has been said that should not of been.
When I hear such things I don't think of the person clinging to their so called right to offend others, but my mind goes back to the many times I was in veteran or naval hospitals as a patient during the 1980's. There were many World War 2 veterans back then, and they came from every background imaginable. They had given so much of themselves and their families, and had stood ready to defend the worlds freedom, not a specific country's or an individuals. We owe them. We owe them everything. When someone seeks to hold down someone based solely on race, we owe it to them to not stand by and do nothing. We should not talk about why an individual has the so called right to do wrong, but instead should take action to protect those that have been wronged.
To defend those that do wrong, or defend those that are wronged. It's very simple, if you are the one being wronged or not, because someday it could be you or those you hold dear.
It wasn't long ago that similiar ideals of Mr Sterling were expressed openly, leading to the death of millions and millions of people. He may not of openly hated, but there is no doubt that his heart did. His words and attempted actions may not of caused physical hurt, but they are without doubt the seeds that have led to many unjust deaths that our forefathers fought against, giving their all.
All of humanity owes a debt to take actions against such things, especially when it is within their power. It is within the NBA's power, and they must act because evil flourishes when good men do nothing.
Posted 28 April 2014 - 01:42 PM
I am very much in favor of the fans, sponsors and players taking action against this bigot. I just don't agree with the attitude that is the responsibility of the commissioner and his office. The commissioner serves at the request of the owners not the other way around.
Frankly I wish the league would stand up to ESPN and tell them they can't broadcast the Clippers-Warriors game and not televise it on NBA TV, fine Sterling every penny he stood to make from TV rights to the league and ban him for life from NBA arenas, front offices and any public appearance on behalf of the team but that isn't realistic. The fans, players and sponsors can't take the road that this is someone else's problem to fix. Everyone who has accepted his money or advertised their product with his team, purchased stuff with his team's logo, etc. has tacitly condoned his attitude for years. That needs to stop.
Posted 28 April 2014 - 04:12 PM
I am in total agreement with chipc3 that everyone, from the fans, players, sponsors, and anyone that has dealings with the clipper organization in any form, need to do what they can to show their disdain for Sterling, especially financially, because that is what is most important to him. My belief does not exclude the commissioner or the league from acting though.
As far as the commissioner and/or league goes, I believe that a strong precedence has already been set by major league baseball and commissioner Silver must act. MLB has banned owners in the past, and Marge Schott was one such owner that was banned due solely because of making racist statements.
Depending on which story you believe, over the years I have read several accounts made by at least four different people that the second commissioner of baseball, Happy Chandler, went against the wishes of all but one major league baseball team when it came to upholding the contract of Jackie Robinson just prior to the 1947 season in which Robinson first played major league baseball. Chandler claimed (and others) that the owners had agreed to a new set of "reforms" for MLB to follow by a vote of 15 to 1. The reforms, of course, would not allow for Robinson to play. Chandler struck it down, and claimed that he knew it would cost him his job by going against all but one of the owners, but he also knew it would be wrong to not allow Robinson to play.
The point being that at the end of the day, yes the commissioner is hired by the owners, but it cannot be used as an excuse to ignore injustices and wrong doing. When someone is given a position of authority, they must be above reproach and maintain their integrity. For Silver to have any means to be corrective in his actions and not do so would be morally wrong. Silver is hired by the owners, but is held to higher standards than just looking out for the owners that he works for. Silver has an obligation to not only the owners, but to the fans of his sport, which if not for them, the NBA does not exist. Not only should Silver act, but he should also encourage others to do what they can as well.
Silver is the guardian of the NBA. All of it, not just the owners. He must act.
Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:25 PM
GF: I wish I could change [the color of my skin]..
DS: That isn't the issue. You missed the issue
- Apparently their is another issue...
DS: People feel certain things. Hispanics feel certain things towards blacks. Blacks feel certain things towards other groups. It's been that way historically, and it will always be that way.
- ... here it is. In Sterling's purview different ethnic groups have certain relationships which require some adherence to certain rules.
DS: But maybe you want to adjust to the world.
- He wants her to adhere to the rules.
DS: I'm living in a culture, and I have to live within the culture.
- More of the same. But you wonder about this "culture". Who is it exactly that he's associating with? Why does he have to associate with such a culture?
GF: I am flexible. I understand that's the way you were raised, and that's your culture.
- It sounds like there was a previous dialogue about the way he was raised and his culture. She sounds sympathetic. Is she really, or is she goading him, keeping him talking?
GF: Whether the world accepts it or not, and you're asking me to remove something that's part of me and you're afraid of what they're going to think.
- This is a bit confusing and nonsensical on her part. A weird way to phrase a thought. I think her point is: She says he want's her to be different so "they" ("they" being the operative word, as opposed to "he" or "you") won't look down on her.
GF: You want me to hate
DS: I don't want you to have hate. That's what people do they turn things around. I want you to love them - privately.
- She keeps implying he's hateful. He rebukes her and reinterates that he wants her to adhere to the culture as he sees it. "- private"; it doesn't seem like she understands this idea.
GF: Who am I disrespecting?
DS: The world before you.
- More of the same.
DS: Everything you say to me is so painful. Do I want you to change the color of your skin? You know how to really hurt somebody.
- When you listen to this it does sound like he's pained. To me it does anyway.
So basically what we've got here is an argument between two people of very disparate ages. Sterling is close to 80, and the GF about 25. The crux of the matter is that Sterling sees the relationship between different ethnicities as being highly structuralized, full of negativity, and requiring a great deal of tact. I don't think that in itself is racist or even bad. It seems untrue and unnecessary to me, but sadly that is how many people feel about America. Obviously, the GF can just barely begin to comprehend it. Either that or she's totally just goading him on. I called this "unmodern" in my original post, and that's exactly all of what it is.
With Sterling as a person unto himself it's a little different. Why does he feel this way? Why does society seem so contentious to him? You don't want people to feel that way. It's bad that they do, but I don't think they are necessarily bad that they do. Is it so very horrendous that someone would perceive angst in the world and prefer to conform to the tenants that society has laid out for him? It's never about what he feels, it's only about his relationship to the society he lives in. He keeps saying that over and over and over.
Sterling is given every opportunity to say something truly racist, and yet he never does. In fact, he only says the exact opposite...
There's nothing wrong with minorities, they're fabulous.
I don't want you to have hate.
There's nothing wrong with you or your skin color.
I don't have any hate on nothin'.
They [minorities] can be with me all day and all night long.
I love black people.
There's no negativity. I love everybody.
I've known him [Magic Johnson] well, and he should be admired.
Posters here are telling me the human mind can delude itself into saying one thing while harbouring an opposite truth. I think that is true. But then, can't the human mind also be so versatile and complex as to say something negative while also feeling a positive truth about the same subject? Can Sterling not want his GF to be out-&-about with minorities, and also not hate minorities? I don't think he's putting on a false face to hide what the false heart doth know. Remember, this is a surreptitious recording of a fight with his lover. It's pretty emotional. There's no players, there's no stage, only fretting.
Everything comes back to culture. They see things so very differently.
I pity Sterling, but I don't hate him; at least not from what I hear on the tape. I think people are focusing on certain visceral red-meat extracts of the dialogue. You know, the ones they play ad nauseum in the media. Those aren't what the dialogue is about. If you're getting the crux of the argument wrong, then you can only misunderstand what is being said.
Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:48 PM
Kind of like when someones 300 pound mother asks if she looks fat when she has her favorite dress on and they tell her no.
Your arguement is one that embraces ignorance. A man is the sum of his actions, not empty words. Sterlings past actions have shown his true racist character. For anyone to defend Sterling only exposes that persons true character.
Why do you have to bring your mother into this?
Sorry. Sometimes I can't resist a snappy putdown, and you made it soooo easy.
This I say to you with the utmost seriousness...
You do a grave disservice to the world, when you prohibit thought. You've called me less than human, you denigrated my character, you even made a pathetically vain and stupid comment on a post I made in another thread. And for what? Only the weak-minded can not tolerate dissent. You are WEAK and your words are a STAIN on HUMANITY.
I'm done with you.
Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:52 PM
Actually I am pretty sure i have done or said things that can be defined as racist in my life. Just by simply growing up in Memphis. I consider myself a person that can look "beyond" the color of a persons skin; but i by no means will ever say that i have never offended another person. I just don't know.
However, my parents didn't raise me to be racist i grew up being exposed to many different cultures. I learned alot on racism thru school and television and being discriminated against. People aren't born racist that is learned. Pretty much every American born person has been exposed to racist propaganda in one way or another, mostly unknowingly. What i personally try to do is become more sensitive to other people's cultures and experiences. Just because i don't consider myself "racist" doesn't mean i am incapable of saying hurtful things to other people. The hidden racist do the most damage and what keeps that ball rolling. Just because you aren't burning crosses doesn't mean you aren't a racist.
If you would like more proof of how Sterling feels follow this link
I disagree with your 90% estimate, but I really admire your introspection. It's a quality Sterling and some other people seem to lack.
Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:14 PM
Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:27 PM
I wouldn't call this a silly offense.
Should have happened years ago. Sad it took this silly offense to force the NBA's hand when he clearly had issues with equality between the races for years. A slumlord who refused to rent to people of color in his nicer apartments, Sterling will likely sue the league because his previous deplorable behavior didn't even warrant a fine from the NBA. at his age he can probably tie this up in courts until he dies.
Yes, it was fairly obvious at the least that he had issues in the past, but by not being found guilty in a court of law for both prior offenses, he was not guilty and made it legally impossible for the NBA to take action. A person that is found not guilty can't be punished based on the findings of that specific case. When a law suit is settled, as was the case with Sterling and his apartment renting, he becomes not guilty. Sterling was also found not guilty in Elgin Baylor's law suit against him. This time there is no court of law involved, only the rules of owner membership in the NBA club, so to speak. Sterling agreed with those rules when he became an owner so he must abide by them. As long as Silver follows those rules, I doubt very much that there is little if any recourse by Sterling.
Posted 30 April 2014 - 07:10 AM
The good news is the scourge of the NBA is gone. Everyone can agree it is long overdue and thet proper action to take.
The bad news is now the Clippers are going to get a serious owner who will make their franchise even that much better. Funny but in the long run Grizzlies fans may miss the days of the racist, profit-monger running the Clippers instead of someone who only cares about putting the best team possible on the court.
Posted 30 April 2014 - 11:38 AM
Sterling paid to settle his case. Unless it is settled with admission to guilt, which is extremely rare, settled court cases are the same as not guilty. If you are found innocent of anything in a court of law, whether you pay for that not guilty ruling by settling the case or through trial, you can't be punished after being innocent.
Legally impossible after he paid millions of dollars to settle a housing discrimination case but not legally impossible for a private conversation with his mistress? Serioulsy?
As far as the "private conversation", it appears that Sterling had given her consent to record their conversations (because of his failing memory), and she has hundreds of hours of such recordings. Sterling has been around long enough to remember Watergate and should have known better.
I can't help but wonder how people would react if a "private conversation" was leaked where the President was heard saying that he didn't want white people in the white house, and refered to white people as "the enemy". Would that be viewed as a silly offense? Sterling, of course, is not in a powerful position as the President, but to many people he actually has more power as their direct employer. He actually has more of an impact in the daily lives of many people.
Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:15 AM
Basically the same is it is now. />
I hope the standard for private citizens hasn't risen to the level of supreme leader of the country but it is a fair argument.
Either way I am glad he's gone and just hope the next owner is as bad as Sterling for most of his years running the team.
Also, asking that conversations be recorded for memory's sake isn't the same as making a public statement. I believe people can see the difference.
Paying fines may not carry the legal term of guilty but clearly is an admittance of guilt. The Justice department saves tax payers money by not drawing out a long legal battle to gain the guilty verdict when the penalty is simply a fine anyway. They got their money which, added to his defense bills, totaled over $10 million. That was all the government needed to achieve.
I doubt anyone, save for making an argument, considers him not guilty of the charges.
Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:22 AM
Should Sterling pass before selling the team, can the Sterling heirs inherit the team and continue to operate as owners or do the suns of the father pass to the children?
Posted 01 May 2014 - 12:40 PM
Within the U.S. legal system, paying money in a court settlement is in no way an admission of guilt unless it is specifically worded that way in the settlement. You and I can easily see the morality, or lack of, in Sterlings court settlement(s), but a court of law does not. As far as the legal system goes, Sterling was found without guilt, carrying the same legal weight as if the accusations were false.
Interesting point. I'm sure some people would be screaming for his ouster while others would say it was a private conversation. Basically the same is it is now. />/> I hope the standard for private citizens hasn't risen to the level of supreme leader of the country but it is a fair argument. Either way I am glad he's gone and just hope the next owner is as bad as Sterling for most of his years running the team. Also, asking that conversations be recorded for memory's sake isn't the same as making a public statement. I believe people can see the difference. Paying fines may not carry the legal term of guilty but clearly is an admittance of guilt. The Justice department saves tax payers money by not drawing out a long legal battle to gain the guilty verdict when the penalty is simply a fine anyway. They got their money which, added to his defense bills, totaled over $10 million. That was all the government needed to achieve. I doubt anyone, save for making an argument, considers him not guilty of the charges.
The arguement of Sterling having what is viewed as a private conversation has no bearing here because it was not in a court of law. It is about him breaking the rules that he agreed upon by becoming an owner in a private organization, the NBA. Without the NBA being bound by the findings of a court of law, they can apply the rules of their organiztion. Perhaps if Elgin Baylor had made his case to the NBA instead of going to court and then being bound by the courts findings, the NBA could have at least investigated Sterling and taken action on their own.
The NBA found that Sterling broke the rules. How they got the information has no bearing here because it was not illegally obtained. It's the NBA's rules, he agreed to the rules, he then broke the rules. There is no court of law saying that he is innocent here, so they are free to act as they see fit in applying their rules and punishment, according to their guidelines. Besides, it's about what he said and did, not about who he said it to. He either broke the rules or didn't. The arguement of private conversation ignores the act of wrong doing. If Sterling doesn't like the rules that he agreed upon when he joined his private club (NBA), it's on him.
Posted 01 May 2014 - 12:56 PM
I think that this is a very good point. Some players have already drawn that line in the sand. As far as Sterlings wife, I agree with them. She has shown that at the very least, she is a person of very poor character.
A new point to discuss. Should Sterling pass before selling the team, can the Sterling heirs inherit the team and continue to operate as owners or do the sins of the father pass to the children?
For the players (and others, media, etc) to demand that the children can't own the team because of another mans actions is just wrong though. It goes against the ideals that they and the league are standing up for. I believe that this falls under the idea that they should be judged "by the content of their character", not someone elses.
Posted 01 May 2014 - 01:35 PM
You obviously have an agenda, and a very negative one at that. The only one that has "denigrated" your character is yourself. Your accusations can more easily be used against yourself than others. You omitted the most negative statements that Sterling made in the attempt to justify his words and actions to fit your narrow agenda. I never called you "less than human", but can understand why you would think of yourself that way when you accuse another of being weak minded based solely on me not agreeing with your views made by minimizing and editing the words of Sterling. Perhaps if you took into account the entirety of Sterlings negative words and actions instead of your edited version you may see your words as a "STAIN on HUMANITY" and not mine.
Why do you have to bring your mother into this? Sorry. Sometimes I can't resist a snappy putdown, and you made it soooo easy. However... This I say to you with the utmost seriousness... You do a grave disservice to the world, when you prohibit thought. You've called me less than human, you denigrated my character, you even made a pathetically vain and stupid comment on a post I made in another thread. And for what? Only the weak-minded can not tolerate dissent. You are WEAK and your words are a STAIN on HUMANITY. I'm done with you.
You have also made it very clear who the "WEAK" one really is here.
Posted 01 May 2014 - 01:52 PM
I think that this is a very good point. Some players have already drawn that line in the sand. As far as Sterlings wife, I agree with them. She has shown that at the very least, she is a person of very poor character. For the players (and others, media, etc) to demand that the children can't own the team because of another mans actions is just wrong though. It goes against the ideals that they and the league are standing up for. I believe that this falls under the idea that they should be judged "by the content of their character", not someone elses.
So if I understand your position correctly, and please correct me if I misspeak,
1) Sterling could NOT be punished for his blatant acts of racism in housing because he wasn't convicted of any crime but merely paid millions of dollars in fees and in fact is not guilty of the crimes he paid the fines for.
2) The act Sterling was punished for was his private communication with his mistress.
3) Sterling's wife can not inherit the team (or receive ownership in a divorce settlement) because she was "accused" of being a racist in the past even though she came out publicly against his comments and said neither she nor her children agree with his position. She has never been declared guilty of racism in a court after all which is the same thing that the NBA couldn't act on previously.
Seems like we are faced with a double standard.
Mrs. Sterling has not been convicted of racism and has not been taped privately or publicly making racist statements. She has publicly come out condemning Sterling's words and said she and her children do not feel as Sterling does.
Another thing to ponder. I wonder how the owners will vote if Sterling subpeonas all of the owners, both majority and minority partners, to testify in court that they have never used the N word in a private discussion with someone. If they say under oath that they have used the N word will they have to surrender their ownership interests as well?
Sterling's just a big enough jerk to do that too or at least threaten to do it if the owners vote to make him sell the team.
Where does the witch hunt end? Is the NBA going to be forced to ask for players permission now to see who can and can't own a team? If the players can determine who is allowed to own a team what's to stop them from insisting a minority person 'who they approve of' must be sold the team regardless of their offer being the best one on the table? What if they decide against allowing a person of asian decent and insist on only an African-American being allowed to purchase the team regardless of how much he is willing to offer?
This could really get ugly.
Posted 01 May 2014 - 03:03 PM
2) The act Sterling was punished for was his private communication with his mistress. - This is also correct. Commissioner Silver was very clear in pointing out that his decision was based on this matter alone and without regard to any of his past. He then went on to say that the owners were to take into account Sterlings past when they have their vote to remove him. Rather clever of Silver in my opinion.
3) Sterling's wife can not inherit the team (or receive ownership in a divorce settlement) because she was "accused" of being a racist in the past even though she came out publicly against his comments and said neither she nor her children agree with his position. She has never been declared guilty of racism in a court after all which is the same thing that the NBA couldn't act on previously. - Sterling is the sole owner. For ownership to be transfered to anyone it must be approved by the NBA (special committee). The NBA can deny ownership based on the financial state of a potential owner, and with Mrs Sterling or their children, they will more likely fall back on that to deny them ownership. Potential owners need more than just cash on hand. They must have the ability to lose money on a team in case of hard financial times unforeseen in the future. The other Sterling family members could argue their financial stability all they want, but I can easily see the committee using this as an easier way to deny them ownership without getting into other reasons.
The NBA owners are bound by agreement to not sue the commissioner or his rulings directly. Part of their club membership rules, so to speak. I believe that the only thing that Sterling can do is drag out the sale of the club, as the former owner of the Dodgers did. I doubt very much that there will be anything happening to make the sale of the team be seen as a "witch hunt". Sterling may look like a bigger jerk by the media, but that will be about it in my opinion.
Posted 02 May 2014 - 05:35 AM