Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Donald Sterling should try to show up at the Clippers game arm in arm with RuPaul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 A) He's a very public employee of the NBA. What he does on his free time, effects his job, and the NBA as a whole. So it's entirely relevant. 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. The NBA has every right to protect it's brand, and that includes not associating, or employing people who harm that brand on "their own time". Fantastic post!! You hit the nail on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Them darkies should be proud to be his property and getting paid! Free Donald Sterling! Well, that's an awfully silly thing to say. Offensive even. Perhaps we should force you to sell your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 As far as whatever you want without taking responsibility, that's not what I said, go back and read it again...what I said was, the NBA has no right to weigh in on this issue...it occurred between two lovers in a private conversation. And sorry, I don't know you, but would you want everything you've ever said to a lover in a heated argument to be made public? And then held against you in your business? I don't believe it's Consitutional and I believe it to be completely against what America stands for...the right to speak freely, and to disagree, and have assh*les who are ignorant and racist, so that the other voices of reason and intelligence can persuade some....but the beauty is found in the power of persuasion, not in the edge of the blade or force...consequences for his touch-hole should have been a slow and methodical loss of his asset through the court of public opinion not buying tickets, losing merchandise, seeing protests outside the arena...not the NBA coming in with some hypocritical ban, as if they didn't know Sterling held these views.... He knew the conversation was being recorded. Granted, it was still a private conversation, but it is not as though he was duped or entrapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Selling the franchise and making hundreds of millions of dollars from it is hardly "stripping". Being forced into doing so absolutely is. I think we should force you to sell your house because I disagree with what you've said. The NBA constitution allows for all of the actions that Adam Silver took. I congratulate him for making this bold statement. Yes, he will walk away with a pretty good return on his $12.6M investment (reports have groups already preparing an offer north of $1B) but the public ridicule and shame was probably the best way punishment. The league has gone from one great leader to another. It's his property, and it's the worst kind of thuggery if he's forced to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 So, freedom of speech, unless you are illegally recorded (yes that's right, this recording wouldn't hold up in a court of law) and own a million dollar company? Makes sense. its an interesting spot - for the nba to dole out the harshest punishment allowed for a conversation that took place behind closed doors, was opinion and not proof of some other action, and may have been illegally taped.... im not defending the guy or his opinions, but will say its an interesting territory to wade into. if an owner speaks out against gay marriage does he get punished, for instance? do players face punishment for private views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 A) He's a very public employee of the NBA. What he does on his free time, effects his job, and the NBA as a whole. So it's entirely relevant. 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. The NBA has every right to protect it's brand, and that includes not associating, or employing people who harm that brand on "their own time". He's not an employee; he's am owner. Also, source for me, immediately, where he said that black people should be considered property or STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KollegeStudnet Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Hadn't considered that but i doubt other leagues need to do such a ban. He simply wouldn't be approved as an owner This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 A) He's a very public employee of the NBA. What he does on his free time, effects his job, and the NBA as a whole. So it's entirely relevant. 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. The NBA has every right to protect it's brand, and that includes not associating, or employing people who harm that brand on "their own time". Really? On his free time? I'm sure if the NBA started recording what the players said in private they'd hear some interesting takes. Hell, start recording the other owners while in private, makes it easy to get rid of who they don't agree with. See where this is going... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 As far as whatever you want without taking responsibility, that's not what I said, go back and read it again...what I said was, the NBA has no right to weigh in on this issue...it occurred between two lovers in a private conversation. And sorry, I don't know you, but would you want everything you've ever said to a lover in a heated argument to be made public? And then held against you in your business? I don't believe it's Consitutional and I believe it to be completely against what America stands for...the right to speak freely, and to disagree, and have assh*les who are ignorant and racist, so that the other voices of reason and intelligence can persuade some....but the beauty is found in the power of persuasion, not in the edge of the blade or force...consequences for his touch-hole should have been a slow and methodical loss of his asset through the court of public opinion not buying tickets, losing merchandise, seeing protests outside the arena...not the NBA coming in with some hypocritical ban, as if they didn't know Sterling held these views.... Btw, freedom WITH consequence, is no freedom at all...therefore, you are not "free" to say whatever you want because the consequence will follow...now, appropriate consequence is a different medium altogether, and on that, we can agree....but the NBA yielding its large stick to "punish" Sterling for a private matter, is an abuse of power....to me Nobody said he can't have those views, he just has to deal with the consequences of them when they are made public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 yea - given his known history that he has gone from scheduled to receive the NAACP lifetime achievement award to receiving the harshest penalty allowed by the NBA is quite the turnaround. this tape really only qualifies as like the 3rd most offensive thing thats been documented. Well, he'll always have that first NAACP lifetime achievement award - and nobody can take that away from him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Being forced into doing so absolutely is. I think we should force you to sell your house because I disagree with what you've said. Ever been a part of a HOA? It's similar sort of thing... you own your property, but there are certain rules you have to abide by, otherwise the HOA can fine you, or in extreme circumstances, force you out. Now, lets take this HOA and add to the fact that it's effectively your employer as well, and is also a VERY big company, and you are a VERY public face of the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Really? On his free time? I'm sure if the NBA started recording what the players said in private they'd hear some interesting takes. Hell, start recording the other owners while in private, makes it easy to get rid of who they don't agree with. See where this is going... Maybe you should take up for all the waiters and waitresses getting fired from restaurants for posting stuff to social media too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Being forced into doing so absolutely is. I think we should force you to sell your house because I disagree with what you've said. That's hardly the same thing here. Ownership of an NBA franchise, which comes with its own bylaws and rules, is very different than just owning any other piece of property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 its an interesting spot - for the nba to dole out the harshest punishment allowed for a conversation that took place behind closed doors, was opinion and not proof of some other action, and may have been illegally taped.... im not defending the guy or his opinions, but will say its an interesting territory to wade into. if an owner speaks out against gay marriage does he get punished, for instance? do players face punishment for private views? There have been numerous allegations and numerous lawsuits against Sterling over the years concerning racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Good point, for a moment I was going to agree with Tasker, but he did violate some bylaws. He didn't make any public statements. He allegedly made private statements, which were illegally recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There have been numerous allegations and numerous lawsuits against Sterling over the years concerning racism. im well aware, and posted several in the OTW thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 So now we strip people of their justly owned property because we disagree with what they say or think? i agree with this. Regardless if someone believes in his actions or not. This is a very slippery slope in this country and society in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 When is the owner of an NBA team not representing that team? When is the President of the United States not representing the US? Certain positions are held to higher standards. If you work at McDonalds what you do in your free time is one thing. Go drink 40 beers at a Bills game an pummel and opposing fan. If you are a state senator and do the same thing the reprecussions will be a little more severe. First, equating the President of the United States with an owner of a business, no matter how large, would seem to be a bit over-reaching...and actually, the way the President would feel the pinch of his private opinion made public, is EXACTLY how I perceive the punishment for Sterlings racist comments to be carried out: in the form of public opinion. If the President said something hateful or racist, he would not get re-elected, he wouldn't be arrested or forced to leave the country, so you've essentially made my point for me. I am all for repercussions for Sterling, but NOT at the hands of the NBA, instead at the hands of the people who support their team. After all, if we're talking politics, owning a team is similar to politics in that, you are dependent on your constituency, and therefore, if they're not happy, you're not around for long - in business or in politics. Then you indicate "pummeling" someone at a BILLS game, now we've crossed into the legal matters. If Sterling pummeled someone at a game, that would appropriate for the NBA to take action as it would be a violent offense and in most states a crime....but a private discussion should be kept exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 He's not an employee; he's am owner. Also, source for me, immediately, where he said that black people should be considered property or STFU. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts