Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 for sure... i was getting at what a bizarre stretch his entire ownership amounts to when you really look at it... and how this clip really took things from zero to sixty so quickly despite all the craziness from the last 3 decades that hes supplied. last week semi-open racism was a non issue despite being WELL documented. and i do still have a strong curiosity where the nba will draw lines around things like this. they must know that they have owners, execs, and players that all have unpopular or controversial opinions on a variety of social issues regarding race, sexuality, gender, and on, and on.... no one thats quoted me has touched that topic yet and id be curious to hear some opinions. I'm absolutely sure that this is an entirely 100% isolated incident because of its subject matter: Racism, specifically against black people, attending NBA games. There is no slippery slope here at all. None. IMO, it's criminally naive to make a comment like "what if they don't like gay marriage" or even if down the line an owner says something derogatory against Chinese or Japanese people, even though it is still racism and there may be members of the NBA of Chinese or Japanese descent. No one can use that example with a straight face that because the NBA had a lifetime ban on Donald Sterling from this incident, all bets are off. No bets are off. People will say it. Sure. It just won't hold any weight. This is because the NBA is a 75% black league and he spoke about attending games with black people. That is the entire story and issue. It's not even racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I listened to the footage today, and you are right. The guy is actually very complimentary of Magic Johnson. It's almost like he's not a racist, but he hangs out with them, and is worried what his racists friends think of him. His racist buddies were probably already giving him a hard time about being honored by the NAACP, and dating a Latina. He's a closet progressive. He's actually a registered Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) People keep on harping on the free speech angle which has nothing to do with a how a private business entity governs their membership by a set of by-laws that to this day have never been published. The NBA, like many sports leagues, is in the public relations business and this incident is clearly not the best interests of the NBA. End of Story. Edited April 29, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 anyone know if Sterling plays Grand Theft Auto? I bet he does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 He's the "owner", his players are given contracts, and as such, can be considered "property". But really, it was a tongue in cheek statement hence the "heh" said in that same parenthesis. Glad to know differing opinions are met with "STFU". Pretty mature debate skills. You said that he thought it was OK to own black people. I've asked you to document your nonsense. If you can't, then I don't believe saying "STFU" is inappropriate to the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 People will say it. Sure. It just won't hold any weight. This is because the NBA is a 75% black league and he spoke about attending games with black people. That is the entire story and issue. It's not even racism. i think thats a fair take - and i wouldnt argue against it, and the nba is in the business of making money so more power to them to make smart financial choices.... i just dont think that you will see many people address the situation that honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 You said that he thought it was OK to own black people. I've asked you to document your nonsense. If you can't, then I don't believe saying "STFU" is inappropriate to the conversation. You have trouble with reading comprehension. Until an administrator tells me that I'm violating site terms, I'm free to participate in this discussion. If I violate the site terms, the administrator has rights to apply punishments outlined in said terms. Kinda relevant. i think thats a fair take - and i wouldnt argue against it, and the nba is in the business of making money so more power to them to make smart financial choices.... i just dont think that you will see many people address the situation that honestly. NBA fans and players won't stand for it. That effectively hurts the NBA brand. The NBA then takes the course of action to protect the brand. Pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) B) Having the opinion that black people aren't good enough to be in your presence, but are good enough to be in your employment (or as property, heh) is not far from attending white power rallies, imo. I have problems with reading comprehension? Perhaps not. Perhaps you have the shortest memory on the planet. Own your words. Back up the bolded portion. Source for the board where Sterling has said that he believes black people should be considered property. Edited April 29, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 NBA fans and players won't stand for it. That effectively hurts the NBA brand. The NBA then takes the course of action to protect the brand. Pretty simple. I agree. This is not even a free speech issue. It’s a “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” issue. I have zero sympathy for a jackass who pisses away a good thing and is still left standing as a free and wealthy man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Security Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Own your words. Back up the bolded portion. Source for the board where Sterling has said that he believes black people should be considered property. Did he mean the players or blacks in general? His players are his employees, who sign contracts, to some degree they are his property. Not in the sense of go wash my car and do my laundry, but he owns their contracts. I would have to hear all the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 NBA fans and players won't stand for it. That effectively hurts the NBA brand. The NBA then takes the course of action to protect the brand. Pretty simple. fair enough - i think a lot of people are pointing to it as a purely moral, social statement - not a practical nuts and bolts financial choice. again, ill wonder out loud, since the doors been opened whats on the other side with regards to who can say what? obviously an owner shouldnt be saying what he said, but what else is off limits for them, or for the players even? or even whats the least offensive thing that can earn a lifetime ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I have problems with reading comprehension? Perhaps not. Perhaps you have the shortest memory on the planet. Own your words. Back up the bolded portion. Source for the board where Sterling has said that he believes black people should be considered property. He's the "owner", his players are given contracts, and as such, can be considered "property". But really, it was a tongue in cheek statement hence the "heh" said in that same parenthesis. You quoted my response to this already, but I'll go ahead and requote it for you. Cheers. what a fu**ing moron, what the hell was he thinking?! So black people are good enough to work for him and make him a millionaire, but not good enough to be seen with him in public? LOL the POS GOT WHAT HE DESERVED, I pity him and his misguided thinking, may God have mercy on his soul... It's the plantation owner mentality. Good riddance. Them darkies should be proud to be his property and getting paid! Free Donald Sterling! For clarity's sake. My tongue in cheek remark was in response to related commentary. fair enough - i think a lot of people are pointing to it as a purely moral, social statement - not a practical nuts and bolts financial choice. again, ill wonder out loud, since the doors been opened whats on the other side with regards to who can say what? obviously an owner shouldnt be saying what he said, but what else is off limits for them, or for the players even? or even whats the least offensive thing that can earn a lifetime ban? NBA has generally taken a pretty liberal stance on social issues in recent history. If an owner came out strong against gay marriage, I imagine there would be backlash. Would it be like this? Who knows. Circumstances are a bit different, considering the makeup of the league. That all being said, this decision made sense from both a business perspective and a moral perspective. At least in my opinion. Edited April 29, 2014 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I hope he sues the hell out of the league for this and wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 NBA has generally taken a pretty liberal stance on social issues in recent history. If an owner came out strong against gay marriage, I imagine there would be backlash. Would it be like this? Who knows. Circumstances are a bit different, considering the makeup of the league. what if one privately gave money to a political group, as opposed to strongly coming out against it (perhaps more akin to this as he wasnt at press conferences speaking about it)? or what if you changed the race in question? i think they are interesting debates on whether the choice is more moral or financial and where the lines fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Security Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Didn't Kobe make a bunch of gay slurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) what if one privately gave money to a political group, as opposed to strongly coming out against it (perhaps more akin to this as he wasnt at press conferences speaking about it)? or what if you changed the race in question? i think they are interesting debates on whether the choice is more moral or financial and where the lines fall. There's no doubt about it that this is both a financial and moral choice. And there's no doubt that the moral parts are greatly effected by the makeup of the league. The NBA would be effected negatively financially by other racial slurs, or homophobia, but probably not to the extent an anti black stance would have. That being said, the NBA appears to be taking the stance of equality in every way possible, whether it's due to morals, or protecting the bottom line. It wouldn't surprise me if they took similar measures against other forms of bigotry from owners. It also wouldn't surprise me if it were more a slap on the wrist, or if the owner apologized profusely to save face right away. Didn't Kobe make a bunch of gay slurs? Yup. Fans were outraged. He quickly apologized. And I think he also put in time with LGBT communities or organizations after, as well. I don't think the team or NBA penalized him, but they probably could have. It depends on player behavior agreements, I'd assume. There was that Eagles WR who got in trouble for his racist commentary, though. Edited April 29, 2014 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 what if one privately gave money to a political group, as opposed to strongly coming out against it (perhaps more akin to this as he wasnt at press conferences speaking about it)? or what if you changed the race in question? i think they are interesting debates on whether the choice is more moral or financial and where the lines fall. Why don't you take a crack at answering your own question. I'm not at all criticizing you or your question, it's an interesting one. To me, this is an extremely isolated incident, and IMO, a player or an owner can say virtually anything he or she wants, as terrible or as heinous as it can be, and would not face a lifetime ban. In fact, I don't think this changes the bar whatsoever. You would have to equal Sterling's stupidity, or surpass it, to get this kind of punishment. In fact, there is just as good an argument to be made that this could make it harder to get a lifetime ban, because the second one will be the slippery slope, not this one. Again, I think that a player or owner could say that "Jeremy Lin is a chi__" which would be intolerably racist, without getting a year suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Didn't Kobe make a bunch of gay slurs? Kobe made gay slurs. Countless others spoke out against homosexuality. Including LeBron King of Douchebags James, who said gays can't be trusted. Barkley runs his mouth like a garden spigot and we are all supposed to not like Mark Cuban because - well, I forgot. It's all a bunch of crap. Free speech is dead, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Security Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Well, safe to say Sterling never will come back. Michael Vick has done it, and I have actually rooted for him, as a player. It was terrible what he was a part of, but he lost almost everything. He was remorseful, I believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 You quoted my response to this already, but I'll go ahead and requote it for you. Cheers. No, see... I asked you to source Sterling making such a statement, since you've attributed this position to him. I did not ask for you to quote yourself either wildly mischaracterizing, or voicing your complete misunderstanding of, contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts