Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.[/quote]
I really just don’t understand why you think anyone here has expressed sympathy for the guy.[/quote]
At least 3 people have in this thread. And that doesn’t count the arguments that the woman’s behavior was worse than Sterling’s.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Is he a racist? Probably. Just the same as there are many sexists and misogynists out there. Do we have the right to control their thoughts or tell them what they must believe? No, absolutely not.[/quote]Nobody has tried to control his thoughts. But that doesn’t mean that everyone has to ignore what he said either. His partner owners don’t want to do business with him. His employees don’t want to work for him. His sponsors don’t want to work with him. He can think the way he wants. And it has ramifications. It really isn’t any more complicated than that.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Whatever you think of his personal beliefs — and remember where he’s coming from, generationally and demographically [/quote]
And one more thing. I know where’s he’s coming from, generationally and demographically. And he’s still carrying attitudes that “where he’s coming from” would be an excuse a southerner would use in 1965. But he’s lived in California or his whole life. This isn’t 1990, and we’re talking about marriage equality. This is 2014. Fifty years AFTER the Civil Rights Act. 47 years AFTER Loving v. Virginia. Sterling wasn’t an old man when those things happened. He was a young man. So “where he’s coming from, generationally and demographically” is an appalling defense of racist.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Whatever you think of his personal beliefs — and remember where he’s coming from, generationally and demographically — the point is that people have a right to their own thoughts and opinions,[/quote]Full stop. Yes they do. That includes both the public, the fans, and the other NBA owners.
[quote=CA renter]and they have the right to not be recorded (especially without consent) and not have these very personal conversations broadcast to the public in ways that can cause serious damage to them and their business.[/quote]
Generally, I agree. But apparently that’s not what happened here. Sterling knew his conversations were being recorded. And at least at this point, there’s no evidence that the woman in the conversations released those recordings.
And beyond that, irrespective of how the information became public, would you do business with a bald-faced racist? Is that something you’d want to know? Or would you argue that you should never have been made privy to the information, and you therefore have no problem doing business with that racist? Remember, he’s not the nameless owner of a business, he’s the very public owner.
[quote=CA renter]Based only on the contents of the recorded conversation, it certainly sounds to me like she was setting him up.[/quote]
I have listened to the conversation, and I do think that there was more to the relationship than a simple employer/employee relationship. She has described their relationship as a father/daughter relationship. (I strongly suspect he wanted something else, but reluctantly acknowledged that was never going to happen. That may just be the dirty old man in me talking.) It doesn’t sound to me like she was setting him up. She boldly called him on his racism.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
IMO, he said what he did because he knows that his mistress is using him for access to rich, black athletes who make Sterling look like the ugly, old fool that he is. He knew that, and was apparently okay with it. It was when she flaunted it publicly on social media that he lost it because his (probably equally old and very rich and powerful) friends were calling him about it.[/quote]
Not much evidence that she’s his mistress. Both say their relationship has never been intimate. The wife, in her lawsuit, isn’t claiming it. If she was his mistress, do you think he’d be ok with sleeping with other men? His friends are calling him out about what? That his assistant socializes with black men? And that’s what he cares about?
I don’t get why anyone would think that her behavior is worse than his. Misogyny at its worst. Nothing but slut shaming.
Participant[quote=paramount]
Is there any evidence that he discriminated against his employees while on the clock?[/quote]Yes. Both against his employees and his tenants.
Participant[quote=paramount]
Oprah – who has made many racist statements – had an audience that was probably 60% white. And yet no audible outrage.[/quote]Maybe there wasn’t outrage for Oprah because what she said wasn’t outrageous? Do you think what Sterling said was acceptable?
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV]
I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.[/quote]Fear of 1984 and thought crime.
We are dangerously walking an edge of being unable even question certain ideas. But that’s a separate issue not present in this situation[/quote]
No, it’s not present in this situation. One thing that societies do is draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Those lines shift over time. What might have been acceptable even 20 years ago is no longer. Sterling crossed that line. Is there anyone willing to stand up and say he didn’t cross it?
Participant[quote=spdrun]It was a PRIVATE CONVERSATION between him and his mistress (let’s not kid ourselves). I’m pretty sure that everyone has said things in the heat of anger that they don’t want to be public.
Sure, she won’t admit to releasing the recordings. That might open her to civil and criminal liability.[/quote]
No, it won’t open her up to criminal liability. He knew the recordings were being made.
Ignoring entrapment issues for the moment, if an undercover cop records private conversations proving guilt of a crime, should those conversations remain private?
Sterling’s comments weren’t “heat of anger” words. They were outrageously racist words by the owner of an NBA franchise whose customer base is 60% non-white. Nobody that I’m aware of has come forward and said that they didn’t have a problem with what Sterling said. His words weren’t slightly outside the norm. They were so far outside the norm that nobody will publically admit that they agree with him. The reaction is understandable.
I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.
Participant[quote=CA renter]I don’t think most of us are part of any lynch mob. Personally, I agree that the most disgusting part of this story is the mistress and her leaking a very private recorded conversation to the press (either directly, or indirectly).
Clearly, Donald Sterling is no moral icon. He’s a complete dirtbag, as far as I’m concerned, but I agree that private conversations between two people are just that…private.[/quote]
Really? I’m shocked you feel this way. The most disgusting part is not Sterling’s outrageously dickish behavior, but rather that someone brought it to the public’s attention?
For what it’s worth, the woman who made the recordings has denied that she ever had an intimate relationship with Sterling, and that she was not the one who released the recordings.
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=scaredyclassic]
kind of. he cannot be prosecuted and jailed. but the NBA has its own rules he seems to have signed on to. [/quote]Do those rules include the suppression of free speech?[/quote]
Check the constitution. Not the NBA constitution. That other one. The concept of “free speech” is based on the limitations on the power of government. This is not a free speech issue. His speech was not suppressed by the government.
Participant[quote=livinincali]
What if it was the HOA. You belong to an HOA it comes out that you said some particularly nasty things about a gay neighbor. Does the HOA have the rights to fine you. Force you to sell your house if 75% of the members vote you out.
I understand the NBAs reaction, they needed to appeal to popular opinion. The problem is it becomes a slippery slope. How long before the NBA owners don’t like Mark Cuban’s comments about something and force him to sell.[/quote]
That’s really not a good analogy. NBA teams operate under franchise agreements with the league. There are specific rules under those governing documents granting authority to the league and to the commissioner. The commissioner acted under his contractual authority, and the team owners are expected to vote under their contractual authority to either force him to sell or relinquish his contract.
Cuban actually has expressed his concern about the “slippery slope” problem. Contrary to some claims though, he hasn’t said that he is opposed to forcing Sterling out. No owner has ever been forced out before for non-basketball related issues. I suspect that Cuban and the other owners, despite their concern, will force a sale. Sterling’s behavior is unacceptable, both from a moral standpoint and a business standpoint. Silver’s decision derived from both, as will the owners.
Participant[quote=paramount]SK – the only one living under a rock is you.
April 29 – Washington Post
Benghazi scandal tied to White House
April 29 – Lawyer for ex-IRS official Lerner seeks to address House ahead of …
I’m not a republican, just interested in the truth.
Hopefully we’ll find out the truth despite IRS/JD stalling.[/quote]
same shit, different day. Rinse, repeat.
Participant[quote=paramount]Gimme a Break – it’s well understood that Rahm has a direct line to cnn.
In fact, wasn’t it rahm who told cnn to breakaway from the Ambassador interview to cover the breaking bieb news?[/quote]
He might. But he hasn’t worked in the administration for 3 1/2 years. It’s possible he has other things to be concerned with.
Is the problem that you haven’t actually followed any news for the last couple years? There is no IRS scandal. Just as many liberal groups were targeted as conservative. There is no Benghazi scandal anymore than there were scandals surrounding the dozen attacks on diplomatic facilities during the previous administration. Attaching the word “scandal” to a news item doesn’t create a scandal.
-
AuthorPosts
