|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67703
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits......
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits...... |
Sorry jodeke, the "shoe" doesn't fit. Reflexx is correct. Disagreeing with procedure in no way correlates to racism. While Reflexx may be way too committed to the "procedure" to the point that he isn't really understanding the context he's trying to apply it to, he's said nothing that warrants your reply that labels him a racist.
Attempting to argue Sterling's defense against being banned doesn't equate to racism. It just indicates a misunderstanding of the stakes that are at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Draper
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 28460
Location: LA --> Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits...... |
Sorry jodeke, the "shoe" doesn't fit. Reflexx is correct. Disagreeing with procedure in no way correlates to racism. While Reflexx may be way too committed to the "procedure" to the point that he isn't really understanding the context he's trying to apply it to, he's said nothing that warrants your reply that labels him a racist.
Attempting to argue Sterling's defense against being banned doesn't equate to racism. It just indicates a misunderstanding of the stakes that are at hand. |
I don't entirely agree with the "shoe fits" argument. However, when I tried to debate some conservatives about that point on Facebook, a bunch of them used racial slurs against me instead of actually responding to my points.
So obviously everyone who is arguing the procedural point isn't a racist, and the shoe won't always fit. That being said, if someone were a "smart" racist, they're more likely to try and use the procedural argument to defend Sterling.
I know I'm a bit biased since I had nasty words thrown at me (weird since I'm mostly Italian), but there ya go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits...... |
Thank goodness it doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don Draper wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits...... |
Sorry jodeke, the "shoe" doesn't fit. Reflexx is correct. Disagreeing with procedure in no way correlates to racism. While Reflexx may be way too committed to the "procedure" to the point that he isn't really understanding the context he's trying to apply it to, he's said nothing that warrants your reply that labels him a racist.
Attempting to argue Sterling's defense against being banned doesn't equate to racism. It just indicates a misunderstanding of the stakes that are at hand. |
I don't entirely agree with the "shoe fits" argument. However, when I tried to debate some conservatives about that point on Facebook, a bunch of them used racial slurs against me instead of actually responding to my points. |
What does that have to do with what was said right here buy the individuals involved?
| Quote: | | So obviously everyone who is arguing the procedural point isn't a racist, and the shoe won't always fit. That being said, if someone were a "smart" racist, they're more likely to try and use the procedural argument to defend Sterling. |
The implication of that is that those who are arguing over procedural matters are "smart" racists. That's laughably faulty justification for trying to take a cheap shot at someone who you don't agree with.
I couldn't disagree more with Reflexx's position on this situation. But never once have I thought his position was racially driven. I just think he's so impassioned with "rights" that he can't slow down to understand that this isn't about rights. It's about commerce and business agreements. Reflexx doesn't understand that Sterling entered into a business agreement where what he says and does is subject to the to being sanctioned by his business partners. say what he thinks is secondary to his business partners
| Quote: | | I know I'm a bit biased since I had nasty words thrown at me (weird since I'm mostly Italian), but there ya go. |
It's unfortunate that you had nasty words thrown at you. But that doesn't change anything. It certainly isn't a go ahead to call people racist when they haven't done anything other than disagree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
You make a lot of great points. I don't even disagree with you on many of them. However, the point is that this isn't what Adam Silver said. He said that the reason they took the course of action that they did was because his private comments were offensive and hurtful. And that he will not tolerate intolerant views.
That is the precedent that has been set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits...... |
Sorry jodeke, the "shoe" doesn't fit. Reflexx is correct. Disagreeing with procedure in no way correlates to racism. While Reflexx may be way too committed to the "procedure" to the point that he isn't really understanding the context he's trying to apply it to, he's said nothing that warrants your reply that labels him a racist.
Attempting to argue Sterling's defense against being banned doesn't equate to racism. It just indicates a misunderstanding of the stakes that are at hand. |
Just to be clear; I'm not arguing against Sterling being banned. I think that is clearly within the contract he agreed to with the league.
The possible forced sale of the team is where it gets iffy to me because that's not in the league contract with owners. There is no morals clause. Nothing that indicates that such action may be taken due to reprehensible moral behavior.
If there was, I wouldn't have any issue with it. But right now it looks like they are trying to play funny with the rules to make this situation fit, and establishing that ability can be dangerous in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don Draper wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits...... |
Sorry jodeke, the "shoe" doesn't fit. Reflexx is correct. Disagreeing with procedure in no way correlates to racism. While Reflexx may be way too committed to the "procedure" to the point that he isn't really understanding the context he's trying to apply it to, he's said nothing that warrants your reply that labels him a racist.
Attempting to argue Sterling's defense against being banned doesn't equate to racism. It just indicates a misunderstanding of the stakes that are at hand. |
I don't entirely agree with the "shoe fits" argument. However, when I tried to debate some conservatives about that point on Facebook, a bunch of them used racial slurs against me instead of actually responding to my points.
So obviously everyone who is arguing the procedural point isn't a racist, and the shoe won't always fit. That being said, if someone were a "smart" racist, they're more likely to try and use the procedural argument to defend Sterling.
I know I'm a bit biased since I had nasty words thrown at me (weird since I'm mostly Italian), but there ya go. |
Well, let's just say that you're far more white than me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
That would be a clever way to get it to fit into their allowed powers.
It's still a stretch though. There aren't any damages to show for other teams. I bet the Clippers, subsidized by Sterling if necessary, wooded still be more profitable than some small market teams. So claiming that it's hurting them financially would be a stretch until it could actually be shown.
Right now the financial burdens it would port on other teams is just a guess. A good guess perhaps, but still a guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67703
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon.
|
Racial attitudes of some posters are surfacing. Some eye opening, some I always suspected. |
Yup. Disagreement about procedure means that people must be racist. |
If the shoe fits...... |
Thank goodness it doesn't. |
That sir is a great response. I was not labeling. Thank you.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
You make a lot of great points. I don't even disagree with you on many of them. However, the point is that this isn't what Adam Silver said. He said that the reason they took the course of action that they did was because his private comments were offensive and hurtful. And that he will not tolerate intolerant views.
That is the precedent that has been set. |
True. But that isn't the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
That would be a clever way to get it to fit into their allowed powers.
It's still a stretch though. There aren't any damages to show for other teams. I bet the Clippers, subsidized by Sterling if necessary, wooded still be more profitable than some small market teams. So claiming that it's hurting them financially would be a stretch until it could actually be shown.
Right now the financial burdens it would port on other teams is just a guess. A good guess perhaps, but still a guess. |
The Clipper's ad revenue is shared amongst the league as part of the NBA's revenue sharing program. So yeah, there was immediate impact on the finances of all the teams as soon as sponsors started pulling out of their deals with the Clippers.
Last edited by DaMuleRules on Fri May 02, 2014 7:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
You make a lot of great points. I don't even disagree with you on many of them. However, the point is that this isn't what Adam Silver said. He said that the reason they took the course of action that they did was because his private comments were offensive and hurtful. And that he will not tolerate intolerant views.
That is the precedent that has been set. |
True. But that isn't the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him. |
I can't presume to know why they actually banned him. We can certainly guess. Maybe they were just bored. Maybe it was a PR stunt to show the world that the NBA is the most progressive sports league when it comes to intolerance. Maybe they were financially motivated. Maybe they just didn't like Donald Sterling's hairdo and used this as a reason to get him out. Maybe they did it because he's old, and they want younger ownership.
Who cares about the actual mechanism anyway. What they say (and what they do in accordance with what they say) means a whole lot more. If the league had come out and said "Ok, the reason we suspended Donald Sterling is because we don't really care about the racially insensitive comment, we just don't like his hairdo" ... that wouldn't bother you because the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him is supposedly some other reason like financial?
What they said means everything (to me anyway) because I want to know if they really mean what they say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: |
I can't presume to know why they actually banned him. We can certainly guess. Maybe they were just bored. Maybe it was a PR stunt to show the world that the NBA is the most progressive sports league when it comes to intolerance. Maybe they were financially motivated. Maybe they just didn't like Donald Sterling's hairdo and used this as a reason to get him out. Maybe they did it because he's old, and they want younger ownership.
Who cares about the actual mechanism anyway. What they say (and what they do in accordance with what they say) means a whole lot more. If the league had come out and said "Ok, the reason we suspended Donald Sterling is because we don't really care about the racially insensitive comment, we just don't like his hairdo" ... that wouldn't bother you because the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him is supposedly some other reason like financial?
What they said means everything (to me anyway) because I want to know if they really mean what they say. |
We know why they banned him. It is outlined in the by-laws. His words have damaged the league. That provision is the mechanism they are using. That's the precedent they are setting - if you engage in an activity that reflects poorly on the league and damages the product you can be banned. There's no danger of them banning people capriciously because they would have to show it damages the league. I'm not too worried about the league banning Donald Sterling for his hair . . . now if we were talking Donald Trump, then we might have something to worry about. But it would be totally justified.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The last couple of pages have some personal accusations being tossed back and forth. Let's please leave those out so the thread doesn't get locked. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
I can't presume to know why they actually banned him. We can certainly guess. Maybe they were just bored. Maybe it was a PR stunt to show the world that the NBA is the most progressive sports league when it comes to intolerance. Maybe they were financially motivated. Maybe they just didn't like Donald Sterling's hairdo and used this as a reason to get him out. Maybe they did it because he's old, and they want younger ownership.
Who cares about the actual mechanism anyway. What they say (and what they do in accordance with what they say) means a whole lot more. If the league had come out and said "Ok, the reason we suspended Donald Sterling is because we don't really care about the racially insensitive comment, we just don't like his hairdo" ... that wouldn't bother you because the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him is supposedly some other reason like financial?
What they said means everything (to me anyway) because I want to know if they really mean what they say. |
We know why they banned him. It is outlined in the by-laws. His words have damaged the league. That provision is the mechanism they are using. That's the precedent they are setting - if you engage in an activity that reflects poorly on the league and damages the product you can be banned. There's no danger of them banning people capriciously because they would have to show it damages the league. I'm not too worried about the league banning Donald Sterling for his hair . . . now if we were talking Donald Trump, then we might have something to worry about. But it would be totally justified. |
I can't presume that damage is the reason. They didn't say that. They said it was because what he said was offensive and hurtful. That's my point of precedence.
If the reason they banned him, is because he did an activity that reflected poorly on the league and damages the product, then let me ask you this.
If Peter Holt (owner of the Spurs), was caught in a video like this, and as a result, lost sponsors, would you push for a lifetime ban? Because if the mechanism is activity resulting in damage to business, then they would have to, right?
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-astonishing-new-video-leaked/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: |
I can't presume that damage is the reason. They didn't say that. They said it was because what he said was offensive and hurtful. That's my point of precedence. |
The rule they are using to justify the ban is the one that cites actions that are damaging to the league. Silver described the words and attitude in the fashion you describe, but that's not the sole reason for the ban.
| Quote: | If the reason they banned him, is because he did an activity that reflected poorly on the league and damages the product, then let me ask you this.
If Peter Holt (owner of the Spurs), was caught in a video like this, and as a result, lost sponsors, would you push for a lifetime ban? Because if the mechanism is activity resulting in damage to business, then they would have to, right?
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-astonishing-new-video-leaked/ |
I would suspect that any owner who creates a firestorm that results in the almost instant exodus of a dozen sponsors is likely to be punished in similar fashion.
And what does Rob Ford have to do with the NBA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 35853
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38789
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At least he's honest...if he were to apologize for being a racist would anybody actually believe him?
The guy has been on this planet for 80+ years. He isn't going to change who he is because of public opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30698
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
You make a lot of great points. I don't even disagree with you on many of them. However, the point is that this isn't what Adam Silver said. He said that the reason they took the course of action that they did was because his private comments were offensive and hurtful. And that he will not tolerate intolerant views.
That is the precedent that has been set. |
True. But that isn't the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him. |
I can't presume to know why they actually banned him. We can certainly guess. Maybe they were just bored. Maybe it was a PR stunt to show the world that the NBA is the most progressive sports league when it comes to intolerance. Maybe they were financially motivated. Maybe they just didn't like Donald Sterling's hairdo and used this as a reason to get him out. Maybe they did it because he's old, and they want younger ownership.
Who cares about the actual mechanism anyway. What they say (and what they do in accordance with what they say) means a whole lot more. If the league had come out and said "Ok, the reason we suspended Donald Sterling is because we don't really care about the racially insensitive comment, we just don't like his hairdo" ... that wouldn't bother you because the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him is supposedly some other reason like financial?
What they said means everything (to me anyway) because I want to know if they really mean what they say. |
Not to be a dick but that's kind of a naive way to look at the world. A canned, politically correct response from a corporate-like entity in the face of public pressure and scrutiny? What exactly did you think the league was going to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52656
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Oh my god. There's a difference between random thoughts and opinions and 200+ YEARS OF OLD SCHOOL UGLY RACIST DOGMA infecting generations of lives. It's times like these I wish we still the rolling eyes emoticon. |
And?...
Did anyone excuse racism? I got one wasn't him to later his franchise. I just don't think that the NBA taking it from him based on thoughts as opposed to actions is the right way to do it.
It sets a very bad precedent that could be manipulated later to force out others based on thoughts as opposed to actions.
:roll eyes: |
I don't blame you for rolling your eyes. The idea that it sets any kind of dangerous precedent that we all need to be wary of is eye rolling indeed, because that's not the case.
There's no precedent that is going to be set, because this the kind of thing that happens all the time to one extent or another when people compromise a business structure they are part of.
There is nothing about this action by the NBA that is going to set a precedent for anything other than what may happen NBA team owners are caught up in something that may actually create a situation where the league is financially damaged and may not even function. |
I don't think you understand. The action has already set a precedent. That precedent being that if you say things we don't like, even if you said them in private, you will be banished. |
I understand completely. This has nothing to do with what the league "doesn't like". This has to do with what financially impacts the league and inhibits their efforts to function as a profit driven entity. Sterling isn't being sanctioned because the league doesn't like what he said. Sterling is being sanctioned because the situation he found himself has proven to be detrimental to the group of fellow business men he partnered up with.
The part you don't understand is that they have a legal right to protect their business that supersedes Sterling's right. Sterling compromised the them and he did so while bound by an agreement not to do so.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. This isn't a privacy issue. This is simply an issue of business. And there is nothing wrong with that. The group of businessmen who are directly faced with the consequences of Sterling's words are acting according to the impact that it is having on their investment and are doing so under the terms that Sterling agreed to by being an owner.
Those of you who are thinking this situation has anything to do with suppression of someone's rights are the ones who don't understand.
Sterling entered into a binding agreement that says he is going to represent the league in a reasonable fashion.
Sterling isn't being banned because he said things that the other owners "don't like." He's being banned because the words he said and that he acknowledges he said have lead to a serious financial and image issue for the league. They are entirely entitled to act accordingly
| Quote: | | Now, whether the league was genuine in their statement of being intolerant on statements that are "offensive and hurtful" and maintain that precedent, remains to be seen. If they do, it would be bad, wouldn't it? |
An issue that is entirely independent of the one at play in the moment. |
You make a lot of great points. I don't even disagree with you on many of them. However, the point is that this isn't what Adam Silver said. He said that the reason they took the course of action that they did was because his private comments were offensive and hurtful. And that he will not tolerate intolerant views.
That is the precedent that has been set. |
True. But that isn't the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him. |
I can't presume to know why they actually banned him. We can certainly guess. Maybe they were just bored. Maybe it was a PR stunt to show the world that the NBA is the most progressive sports league when it comes to intolerance. Maybe they were financially motivated. Maybe they just didn't like Donald Sterling's hairdo and used this as a reason to get him out. Maybe they did it because he's old, and they want younger ownership.
Who cares about the actual mechanism anyway. What they say (and what they do in accordance with what they say) means a whole lot more. If the league had come out and said "Ok, the reason we suspended Donald Sterling is because we don't really care about the racially insensitive comment, we just don't like his hairdo" ... that wouldn't bother you because the actual mechanism that the league is using to ban him is supposedly some other reason like financial?
What they said means everything (to me anyway) because I want to know if they really mean what they say. |
Not to be (bleep) but that's kind of a naive way to look at the world. A canned, politically correct response from a corporate-like entity in the face of public pressure and scrutiny? What exactly did you think the league was going to say? |
That's not being a (bleep) at all. It's a fair assessment. It wasn't just about Sterling's words - or Silver's. It should be obvious that things run far deeper than the few words Silver said in his PC. The league needs a legal basis to make the decision that they did, and that's going to entail more than the simple fact that they were upset by his words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2009
Posts: 7251
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, cheer up Donald. At least you're not Dwight!
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38789
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm thinking that it was really her friend that leaked it...I mean her money train is gone now....no more courtside seats to Clipper games, her sugar daddy most likely isn't giving her any more money for more Ferrari's, BMW's, Lexuses...etc
That being said her entire band of friends are attention seekers so I would not be surprised if they all welcomed this type of attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
