Seems Mark Cuban agrees with you RJ: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ll-announce-its-stance-on-sterling-case-today
I never said it was wrong. I said I myself in their situation wouldn't have forced Eich out. I am not saying either discrimination on race or sexual orientation is right. As far as the business side it is a fact that Sterling's comments are costing the NBA money as sponsors were pulling out already. It was the same with Eich. What you seem to have problems differentiating is what is personal opinion versus business. My argument regarding Eich had to do with personal opinion. Many including yourself seemed to disagree with my personal opinion which is why I asked the question. Actually a pluralistic society doesn't mean that a only tolerant views are allowed. At the risk of sounding like ATW here I will point out that Muslim societies do also have a history of persecuting others and some Muslims have certainly expressed hate towards otehrs. At the same time many atheists have made very disparaging comments about the religious. That said though it sounds like you are bringing up the argument that discrimination only goes one way based on history. In other words the politically position. I don't mean that disparagingly as I don't think political correct is an insult but I do find it to be somewhat simplistic in a situation like this. As I said earlier what I find the most interesting about the Sterling case is that society is at the point that he had to hire the people he hated and also pay them millions. At the same time Eich also had to work with and deal with people he didn't like either. That to me tells me much more about society. As much as those guys could rant rave and campaign against the people they liked society was moving on against them. And I agree with that but the issue to me is that that still has to be balanced with the issue of private versus professional lives. That line is becoming thinner and thinner everyday. As I said earlier we are getting to the situation where you are not just held to account for your actions but also for your thoughts.
Cuban does bring up a good point. There are a lot of people who have negative and unpopular views and express them in private. Many of us have said things here that we probably don't want people we work with to hear. Would all of you feel good to be judged by things you said on Clutchfans? Jason Whitlock has some similar points. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...ld-sterling-la-clippers-owner-fix-our-culture [rquoter] Culture Clash Removing Sterling will not fix the systemic racism that gave birth to his attitudes In our zeal to appear righteous or courageous or free of bigotry, a ratings-pleasing mob hell-bent on revenge turned Donald T. Sterling -- a victim of privacy invasion and white supremacy -- from villain to martyr. In a society filled with impurities, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers committed the crime of speaking impure thoughts in the privacy of a duplex he apparently provided for his mistress. And now an angry, agenda-fueled mob provoked NBA commissioner Adam Silver into handing Sterling a basketball death sentence. On Tuesday, just 72 hours after the release of Sterling's Pillow Talk Tapes by TMZ, a rookie commissioner imposed a lifetime ban on a flawed man whose rights were violated. Mob rule is dangerous. Well-intentioned, TV-baited mobs are the most dangerous. They do not consider the consequences of their actions, and they're prone to take a simple-minded, instant-gratification approach to justice rather than a strategic one. Removing Donald Sterling from the NBA solves nothing. It sets a precedent that will likely boomerang and harm the black players and coaches who are shocked and outraged that an 80-year-old man with a documented history of bigoted actions also has bigoted private thoughts. Let's be careful here. From the owner's box to the locker room, professional sports are overrun with wealthy men in complicated, volatile sexual relationships. If TMZ plans to make "pillow talk" public and the standard is set that "pillow talk" is actionable, it won't be long before a parade of athletes joins Sterling on Ignorance Island. A right to privacy is at the very foundation of American freedoms. It's a core value. It's a mistake to undermine a core value because we don't like the way a billionaire exercises it. What happens when a disgruntled lover gives TMZ a tape of a millionaire athlete expressing a homophobic or anti-Semitic or anti-white perspective? Warriors coach Mark Jackson, who called for Clippers fans to boycott Game 5, seems quite vulnerable to mob rule. Jackson is super-religious. He's previously been extorted by a stripper he kept as a mistress. And some of the LGBT community views Jackson as homophobic. The conversation revolving around Donald Sterling is unsophisticated, and so was the heavy-handed punishment. They're driven by emotion rather than logic. It does not serve the greater good of the offended black community. Sterling is a scapegoat. He is an easy target, a decoy so that we do not address the elephant he walked into his mistress' bedroom. "We don't evaluate what's right and wrong," Sterling is heard telling his black-and-Latina mistress when she asked if it was right to treat black as less than white. "We live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture." Sterling adheres to a pervasive culture, the hierarchy established by global white supremacy. "I don't want to change the culture because I can't," Sterling says. "It's too big." This was Sterling's one moment of clarity. The culture of white supremacy created Donald Sterling. He did not create the culture. Much of what Sterling said on the tape is a rambling mess that can be interpreted many ways by sophisticated, mature and objective ears. To my ears, he doesn't care that his mistress has black friends. He doesn't care if she has sexual relationships with black men. He's married. They're not in a monogamous relationship. He simply does not want her extracurricular activities, particularly when they might involve black men, flaunted at his basketball games or all over Instagram. This conversation, while grotesque and abhorrent, is not remotely unique or limited to old white men. My father was hood-rich, good looking and a playa who enjoyed the company of a younger, kept woman. Many of his friends had similar tastes. Their private conversations about dating could sound every bit as abhorrent and grotesque as Sterling's. I've heard young black men and women engage in equally grotesque and abhorrent private conversations, particularly when their feelings are hurt or they feel betrayed. No. The substantive meat of Sterling's Sex, Lies and Audiotape is his point about the culture that created his worldview. He is adhering to the standards of his peer group. He is adhering to the standards of the world he lives in. It's a world inhabited by all of us. It's a culture that shapes everyone's worldview on some level. It fuels the black self-hatred at the core of commercialized hip-hop culture, and is at the root of the NAACP's initial plan to twice honor an unrepentant bigot with a lifetime achievement award. White-supremacy culture is created, maintained and run by rich white men, Sterling's peers. He is the longest-tenured owner in the NBA. Former commissioner David Stern had multiple opportunities to run Sterling out of the league for his bigoted actions. Sterling's peers have always protected him ... until he had the audacity and stupidity to be caught on tape explaining the culture they maintain. It's comical to watch the well-intentioned mob circle around Sterling as if his unintended transparency says nothing about his peer group. It's equally comical seeing this issue framed as a "black issue," with black people running to suggest ways to clean up Sterling's mess. White people should be wearing black socks, turning their T-shirts inside out, protesting outside the Staples Center. This is their culture, their Frankenstein. Or maybe they agree with Donald T. Sterling. "I don't want to change the culture because I can't. It's too big." It's also too beneficial. It's too comfortable. Well-intentioned white people should be holding nationally televised panel discussions focusing on ways to lessen the damaging impact of white-supremacy culture. Well-intentioned white people who work within or support the NBA should be demanding that the NBA power structure cede some of its governing power to men and women who look like the overwhelming majority of the league's players. Instead, the mainstream fanned the flames, enraging the angry black mob looking for a quick solution, a sacrificial lamb -- and now, by the end of the week, we'll be back to business as usual, pretending the stoning of Sterling harmed the culture that created him.[/rquoter]
but you would force Sterling out? I am trying to understand how you draw a difference between the two. Maybe I am dense but I am just not getting it. Wait, what do you mean by personal opinion. Whether or not Sterling is a good guy or not isn't what we are discussing. It's whether or not a racist should be allowed to continue to run organization. You are saying it should only be based on business decisions? And that if it did not cost the NBA money he should not be forced out? Because if that is the case, then I agree with you. At the end of the day, it's the workers and consumers who have the power. It may seem I have capitulated a bit probably because I honestly wasn't sure what is the right approach. The problem with Sterling staying is that his players and coaches are disgusted with who he is. So it is an untenable situation. But you're right, if they could see deeper beyond their disgust and anger, they would realize that Sterling isn't the problem. It's the society that makes Sterling the way he is. That's a great article you put up there. Words and thoughts are dangerous things to condemn a man for. Because they are so easy to misinterpret, so easy to cover-up the root issue, and also because what someone says is temporal. At the same time, Sterling (nor Eich) are being punished for their views. It's a business decision. Getting rid of these guys is what's good for business. Would Adam Silver kick Sterling out if he did not have to? If there was no pressure on the NBA? I doubt it. And what will be accomplished by removing a man who was racist but not criminal or a bad business man? To say to racists that - be careful what you say - you might get fired for it? You're right about Clutchfans being used against us. That's why we hide behind our monikers. I certainly would not want to be judged by my "experiments" of the past. However, public perception is key, and it will hurt the NBA brand and cause a big problem (profit wise as well as social) to allow him to stay. But it is unfortunate that more people aren't asking questions. Especially ones like: What made Don Sterling care about what color is the skin of the people his lover associates with? What taught him to be that way? What is it that makes him comfortable to work with and employ black men, and sit in his arena next to black men, but not have his gf bring them to the game? There is a difference between having views that are rooted in discrimination and being of a culture or tradition that has roots in discrimination. No not saying that it goes one way just that at this time these are the battles that are being fought. The issue with Sterling isn't that he has said something politically incorrect, it's that he is acting in a way that is discriminatory. The question is as a policy as opposed to the words, "I don't want you to bring black people coming to my games". That desire and personal action is what is I think for discussion. Not the words, but rather the implementation of those words. And I agree.
The principle on how he was ousted is debatable. That it took something as manufactured as this is really unfortunate. But it's not only what Sterling said, but what he's consistently done. I have no doubt this "controversy" is well timed as Sterling was a repugnant owner that no one expected the Clippers to be contender worthy under his tenure. It's like Kim Jong Il on a solid road to getting a nuke. No f-in way that should happen, and that door will almost close tight after this.
I said if it was a business decision I would force Eich out also and in the case that contractors were pulling out the Mozilla board had to act. What I said though is my own personal opinion is that if Eich's views had previously never affected the way he carried out his work or the bottom line of Mozilla I personally didn't think that he should've been forced out. If Sterling's own views had no affect on the Clippers' organization or the NBA I would think the same way. Also you need to keep in mind there is one major difference between Sterling's history and Eich's. Sterling actually did let his views affect his business and what he did was illegal. Sterling had been sued and fined for discrimination in his rental practices. Eich from all accounts didn't let his views affect his business practices and while disagreeing with his position engaged in a legal action on a referendum that actually passed. Yes. The NBA is ultimately a business and on that is the primary basis of how decisions are made. I don't expect team owners to be exemplary citizens and I suspect that most of them say and do things that most people would consider unsavory. This only becomes an issue when it affects the brand of the NBA. The truth is we don't know whether Sterling's views are shared by other owners or not and personally I don't think it is that important as long as they don't allow discriminatory views to affect how they run their businesses. This is the difference between a personal versus a business decision. In this sense I agree with Cuban that people have the right to be morons but when being a moron affects how your business is run then that hurts the rest of us. Yes. Most likely Silver wouldn't move to kick him out and especially not this quickly if this hadn't become a fire storm. I don't really know what makes Sterling tick but I suspect he just grew up at a time when these views were acceptable and has never changed. He has been chastened enough from fines and also is smart enough to know that if he is going to succeed he has to hire people he otherwise doesn't like. This is why I find him so pathetic and why I says him hiring Doc Rivers and paying millions to Chris Paul and etc.. says more about our society than his rants. He is a racist in his heart but he still has to hire minorities and pay them millions. This is why I said earlier if a KKK member hired me to be his architect I might do it because it will say more about where we are when a white supremacist has to hire one of the Mud People to design his building. Not sure what the difference is. Racism in America has roots in culture and tradition. What did Sterling in were that those words were made public. Whether his GF, who is half-black, takes selfies with Magic Johnson or not doesn't really affect the Clippers business or not but that it is out there for everyone to see has created the issue. As I said we really don't know what the owners really think.
The principle is that it is costing the NBA money and as a business organization the owners have an interest in protecting their business interests. As a private organization they have the right to decide who is and who isn't an owner and under what terms people stay part of it. Sterling knew those terms when he got into the league so his rights aren't being violated. Given Sterling's track record that the NBA was probably looking for a way to get rid of him. He just happened to be dumb and unlucky enough to give it to them.
Except that his past was not an issue with the NBA. His actually discriminatory practices is not what got him forced out. It was his words and feelings. You would think that it should be the other way around - that actions are what should result in him being ousted, not what he says. Except Sterling is in an unusual situation as he doesn't have much choice. Most people do have choices and can still discriminate and still do. I bet many people chose contractors or associates based on race. They may not think it, but it is there. Picking someone you are "comfortable" with. People like to do business with their "own kind". That's discrimination. And a significant amount of people do that of all colors - I hear it all the time, from people who believe they are progressive and open-minded even. The ugly truth is that racism and discrimination is far more pervasive in our personal lives than most would like to admit. Instead we limit it to the use of certain words. But no one ever says ones choice in friends, associates, contractors, charity, etc....isn't race driven. So you are saying that if you come from a culture that in its past persecuted Jews that's no different than currently being anti-Semitic????
I think they should've kicked him out much sooner for blatantly racist things he's done over the past. It's unfortunate it took a tape and an angry mob to oust him because that seems to be the only way to pull down a wealthy pro sports owner.
To clarify, Sterling's racism is a bit more nuanced. He appears to want to hire black people to play basketball, because he thinks basketball players should be black based on their body type. That's why he was so reluctant to pay J.J. Reddick as a white player. His issue with black people (from these tapes) is associating with them as friends, and what his fellow racist friends would think of it. He's OK having them as employees and customers in general, it seems.
You bring up an interesting point. Is it racist to avoid a race because other people in your life (parents, friends, associates) would judge you negatively otherwise?
That's a little too general. A Pakistani girl who won't marry a white Christian for fear her family will disown her (or worse) doesn't really carry a lot of moral blame because she has no power. A self-made billionaire in the United States facing the snickers of a few friends (racist friends he chooses to associate with) carries all the moral baggage of his choices.
That's why I used the word "judge". Assuming it's only perception or perceived impact on one's life, without a threat of negative action. If a Pakistani girl living in the U.S. is told by her parents that people who associate with blacks are x, y, z. And she decides she doesn't want pictures of her with blacks appearing on her FB wall where her parents will see her because of that - does that make her a racist? I am not entirely sure either way.
Eh, I think the principle is the same, but the spectrum simply isn't as wide. Pakistani girls, even in the US, are more dependent on the approval of their families than old rich men are on their friends'. Also consider that Sterling does not have the approval of his own family, earning reproach from his son, but apparently values the approval of friends more. He chooses these friends. If he didn't more or less agree with their values, he could easily dump them and find new friends. I'm sure he could just switch to a new country club and find people who won't judge him for associating with black people. But, if your mother doesn't like you dating black guys, she'll still be your mother regardless. The power relationship is still quite different.
...and not to pile on you or anything here, Sweet Lou 4 2.... ...because you're making some valid points and raising interesting questions.... ...but insofar as Donald Sterling is concerned, this particular diatribe of his speaks more to institutional, legalized and ultimately rewarded societal pathos of generations of American culture and history. Sterling's "problem" is that he "owns" a business who earns its profits from the very people he despises. It is an admittedly self-serving action (even if Sterling's past behavior warrants it) to seek to remove him from franchise ownership. Before, any of Sterling's inappropriateness did not cause the league proper much of anything. In fact, Sterling made a point for many years to keep the team, financially, operating in the black, so the league was actually profiting from Sterling's ownership in some ways, even if he was largely despised by his peers or employees. The problem that must be honestly addressed, in my opinion, is not simply how or why Donald Sterling acts and feels the way he does... ...but how he managed to not be punished for any of a slew of other much more troubling behaviors and practices by the NBA. All of Sterling's legal troubles of the past have not involved the NBA, so there could be the assumption that the NBA had no vested interest in making any kind of statement or judgment about anything related to him. As others who are much more articulate than me have pointed out, the problem that metastasizes in the form of Donald Sterling's thought processes and life perspective (and through his business dealings, particularly), he has the ability to direct, influence, and ultimately corrupt and stifle any real attempt by people he doesn't like or approve of to do as much as they could possible do to better themselves and the quality of their lives. That's what the real danger is and always has been. And that is what defines "racism" to me. When you can negatively and MATERIALLY affect the lives of people you do not like or hold in personal contempt (through hiring and employment or housing practices, in Sterling's case), that is when the bigotry and prejudice that sometimes rears it head in all of us at one time or another either publicly or privately moves to an even more terrible place. A place of actions and consequences, both immediate and far-reaching, and debilitating and self-perpetuating. The idea of an "equivalency" here is always misplaced, to me, Sweet Lou 4 2. It is no less ugly and bigoted and prejudiced if someone black slurs a white person. Or a Hispanic person slurs a black person. Or everybody slurs and Asian person. But since ours is a country of capitalist intent, people are sometimes left to decide if their "moral" outrage is worth the monetary sacrifice of resisting the leanings of a man who gained much of what he has through a system and a structure that is slanted to benefit him in most every arena in life, and discard everyone else who falls outside that standard. There are generally not many thing I could find wrong with tangential arguments, Sweet Lou 4 2. There are slopes and then there are slippery slopes, to be sure. Everyone has the right to be an insulated and insufferable bigot, if it so fits their mood and he can get his mistress to agree with the terms of it. And I did once join our Armed Forces (and meet a few people while there) who I had pledged to die to defend that right for them, even though they despised me, as crazy as that sounds. And I'd do it again, given the same choice and circumstances. No one else should have to suffer for it, though. Sterling doesn't have to live his life any way other than he sees fit. But it's been way past time he got out of everybody else's way and let us live ours....
A billionaire worried to death about what his wacist friends think. Maybe life as a peon isn't so bad at all.
