Moderated Donald Sterling, Owner of the Clippers, is Racist

[SezMe]

Sure, "The Bell Curve" is excellent and lots of info on differences in IQ in a goggle search.

Uh-oh, a boo-boo. The Bell Curve is a tainted bunch of hooey:

The Bell Curve, it turns out, is full of mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to mis-citations of sources to outright mathematical errors. Unsurprisingly, all the mistakes are in the direction of supporting the authors' thesis.

Hanging your hat on the (supposed) Bell Curve will haunt you to the end of your days. Rather, seek the truth, grasshopper.

 

[ABC10]

Uh-oh, a boo-boo. The Bell Curve is a tainted bunch of hooey:



Hanging your hat on the (supposed) Bell Curve will haunt you to the end of your days. Rather, seek the truth, grasshopper.

I doubt it. I could be wrong but I don't think so.
"Differences of opinion is why we have horse races" Mark Twain

 

[Molinaro]

This must be a difficult time for V. Stiviano. Luckily, being the genius that she is, she has figured out how to fly under the radar. Only the most intrepid of investigative reporters could pick her out of a crowd thanks to her choice of disguise:

 

[Neally]

Yet another misunderstanding of freedom of speech. The government did not arrest him for what he said. Hence, he his First Amendment rights were not violated.

I never said they were. Just saying it's too bad the thought police couldn't find a way to, you know, make him hurt real bad as revenge for all the hurtful things he said in a private conversation. Just say'n.

i don't know if you are an American or not, regardless you've been around here long enough I'd think you would have at least a grade school understanding of the constitution. Guess not.

What part of the constitution did I get wrong?

 

[SteveMatthews]

It's so weird the NAACP was going to give this guy a lifetime achievement award.... how the hell did that come about?

I'm a (possibly soon to be former) Clippers fan, and many of us were wondering the same thing. Sterling often gives away hundreds of tickets to games to lower income families and schools, and the current theory is that perhaps the award was based on that. However, that was always seen by many as damage control for other actions rather than something from the goodness of his heart, but it's one possibility.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

8 pages are a bit too much to catch up on. Am I the only one who thinks what Sterling's primary issue with his girlfriend was he didn't like the fact she looks like her black half when she's in pictures with other blacks?

 

[Caper]

I'm a (possibly soon to be former) Clippers fan, and many of us were wondering the same thing. Sterling often gives away hundreds of tickets to games to lower income families and schools, and the current theory is that perhaps the award was based on that. However, that was always seen by many as damage control for other actions rather than something from the goodness of his heart, but it's one possibility.

I don't know.... Could he be both? Could he be both racist and feel good for what he does for lower class families. Can he feel superior towards black people, yet inferior at the same time? I think all people are more complex then we think.

I listened to Stephen A Smith today, who I thought was bang on. One point he brought up... and he said in fairness to the situation.... all people (and I agree with this) have said stuff in their private life that would surely outrage anyone..... and that's one problem I have with this whole thing. Of course he has to go... and one way or another this has to end with this guy not owning the Clippers....... But I never liked the whole... lets all grab a pitchfork and go after who ever said whatever stupid thing this week.

 

[ABC10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

Hey, thanks Neally.

 

[Mumbles]

8 pages are a bit too much to catch up on. Am I the only one who thinks what Sterling's primary issue with his girlfriend was he didn't like the fact she looks like her black half when she's in pictures with other blacks?

That's quite possible. Still, being an Instagram segregationist is taking racism to a cartoonish level.

I won't even agree with the folks saying he's absolute scum - although obviously, racism is a wrong. The fact that a person can be a bigot, and yet be kind to people they know, is something that people need to understand. But, really...

 

[SteveMatthews]

I don't know.... Could he be both? Could he be both racist and feel good for what he does for lower class families. Can he feel superior towards black people, yet inferior at the same time? I think all people are more complex then we think.

I agree with you in that I think that Sterling genuinely thinks he isn't racist and is probably very, very shocked by the reaction he's getting right now. I think many of the things he's done over the years have probably been out of the goodness of his heart. I agree with you on that, I suppose I spoke too soon.

I also agree that I don't like the whole attacking someone for one comment trend. However, there have been so many other legal problems and controversies with him over the years, that the conversation that caused this uproar pales in comparison to some of the other stuff that has happened. Unfortunately, there should have been an uproar over this guy long before now. I think the main reason there hasn't be a larger uproar before is that, quite frankly, the Clippers always sucked when he got into trouble before. This is the first time he got caught doing something when they were not only in the playoffs, but contending for a championship with league-wide respected players and coaches.

He might not be a KKK style racist, more an ignorant and unaware one, but there's enough controversy and dirt in his past that he deserves the negative attention he's getting...even if it's mainly focused on one incident rather than the whole spectrum.

 

[Caper]

I agree with you in that I think that Sterling genuinely thinks he isn't racist and is probably very, very shocked by the reaction he's getting right now. I think many of the things he's done over the years have probably been out of the goodness of his heart. I agree with you on that, I suppose I spoke too soon.

I also agree that I don't like the whole attacking someone for one comment trend. However, there have been so many other legal problems and controversies with him over the years, that the conversation that caused this uproar pales in comparison to some of the other stuff that has happened. Unfortunately, there should have been an uproar over this guy long before now. I think the main reason there hasn't be a larger uproar before is that, quite frankly, the Clippers always sucked when he got into trouble before. This is the first time he got caught doing something when they were not only in the playoffs, but contending for a championship with league-wide respected players and coaches.

He might not be a KKK style racist, more an ignorant and unaware one, but there's enough controversy and dirt in his past that he deserves the negative attention he's getting...even if it's mainly focused on one incident rather than the whole spectrum.

Yeah, yeah... agree 100%. He's seems largely a scumbag for sure and there is just no way he can keep this team..... that could get crazy trying to get him out. I can see all their players being allowed to sign anywhere.

I think he is far from the only owner with skeletons in his closet.... and same goes for most anyone carrying a pitch fork.

 

[Caper]

The more I read about the guy.... the more dickish he becomes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/s...c-record-of-bad-behavior.html?hpw&rref=sports

 

[Mumbles]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Just heard Donald Trump call the tape "a set up by a bad, very bad girlfriend."
He laughed a little too. <snicker>
Republican.

LOL

Bigoted white guy defends other bigoted white guy.

The birds of a feather have flocked together...

 

[Nova Land]

It's so weird the NAACP was going to give this guy a lifetime achievement award.... how the hell did that come about?

I'm a (possibly soon to be former) Clippers fan, and many of us were wondering the same thing. Sterling often gives away hundreds of tickets to games to lower income families and schools, and the current theory is that perhaps the award was based on that.

That's possible, but I've got a different theory I think fits better.

Donald Sterling started his own foundation, The Donald T. Sterling Charitable Foundation, which I alluded to earlier in this thread. It makes grants to a large number of groups, one of which is the United Negro College Fund.

Here's a site displaying 54 of the groups receiving grants in 2013. Many are health-related (such as American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and The Red Cross). United Negro College Fund is the only black-related group I see on a skim, but I would not be surprised if over the years Sterling and his foundation have made many grants to UNC and other black-related groups and that it's this charitable giving which was being honored.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

<snip>

As I explained, though, I did not have those in mind at the time, since I misunderstood what David was referring to. He confirmed that he was referring to more than just ABC10's posts, and he gave me some quotes from other posts, without any explanation whatsoever. I did not (and still do not) consider those quotes to be examples of fallacious reasoning, or non-sequiturs, or trolling, and I gave my reasoning in detail. Neither you nor David has responded. Instead, you simply continue to assert that I have been given an example. I think I've amply demonstrated who is interested in honest debate, and who isn't.

I can't speak for David, ...

No, you can't. And my challenge was made specifically to him, and he accepted my terms. It's awfully presumptuous of you to butt in and declare victory under different terms (or even under the same terms, frankly, since it was his job to justify his claim, not yours).

but I'm not willing to jump through hoops to provide more evidence to someone who has demonstrated themselves to be arbritrarily dismissive of evidence already provided to them.

So in your mind "arbitrarily" means providing a detailed analysis which neither you nor anybody else here have even attempted to rebut?

 

[sunmaster14]

Why is it more reasonable to assume Lott was speaking nonsensically than with intentional racist subtext?

Because in public speaking, you generally want your allusions and references to be understood by the audience, which in the instant case was diverse in terms of age and political ideology (and probably in other ways). In speaking in 2002, references to "all these problems over all these years" was most likely to relatively recent problems the country faced. It would have been odd indeed if he actually had in mind turmoil in the 1950s and 1960s, and perhaps even odder if he thought the recent problems I referenced were caused by the end of Jim Crow.

On top of that, I really don't think that Trent Lott believes that segregation was a good thing. This is one of those things we'll probably have to agree to disagree on. If you're inclined to believe Lott is a racist, then you will regard his gaffe as a Kinsley gaffe. As I pointed out in another post, this is why it may seem to liberals that conservatives are more likely to defend a conservative caught in one of these kinds of controversies. And of course, vice versa.

I mentioned earlier that Joe Biden told the Boston marathon bombing survivors that "it was worth it!" Not once, but twice, and then he said he really meant it. His supporters tried to defend him by arguing that he meant that "it was worth it" to take time out of his busy schedule to attend the memorial and hear the survivors speak. I think that's ridiculous, in part, I'll admit, because I'm predisposed to believe that Biden's brain runs about 30 seconds behind his heart. I don't think he's a bad guy actually. Quite the contrary. He probably is a wonderful grandfather.

 

[Nova Land]

On Sunday I posted regarding the Conservative Treehouse echo-chamber claims being passed along here by ABC10 that Donald Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser, a Democratic bundler, a significant donor to the Democratic Party, etc. In that post I concluded that:

1. The claim that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser appears entirely unsupported.

2. The claim that Sterling is a Democratic contributor appears also to be false; a correct claim would be that 22 years ago Sterling was a Democratic contributor. (Since then he has been even-handed in donating an identical amount of $0 to both parties).

3. As for the claim that Sterling is a Democrat, the Conservative Treehouse article ... cited does not make that claim. (The Daily Caller article which the Conservative Treehouse cites also fails to make that claim.)

It's quite possible Sterling was registered as a Democrat when he made his last recorded contribution to a Democrat in 1991. It's quite possible he is one now. But [the] cited source provides no evidence to support that claim.

I'd like to make two updates to that.

First: thanks to A'isha we now know the claim that Sterling is a Democrat is also false.

Second: The Daily Beast reports that two more political donations from Donald Sterling have turned up: a $5000 contribution in 2002 to Gray Davis and a $1000 in 2008 to Californians for Humane Farms (a group which was lobbying in 2008 for passage of a ballot proposition regarding standards for confining animals.)

The reason these contributions didn't turn up before is that the previous searches referenced used OpenSecrets.org. The OpenSecrets database lists federal contributions; these were state contributions, which can be found by using FollowTheMoney.org.

To see if there was any additional information not included in the Daily Beast article I did the search for myself. Here's a link to the search on FollowTheMoney. (And for completists here's a link to the search via the Sunlight Foundation, which includes both the OpenSecrets and FollowTheMoney results.)

Upthread Stellafane speculated that the donations to Bill Bradley in 1989 might have been based more on the basketball connection than on politics. That's looking more likely to me now as well.

I was intrigued by the Leahy donation, since Leahy is one of the more liberal / progressive politicians. But Leahy, as I noted in a previous post, was on the senate's agriculture committee; the donation to Californians for Humane Farms indicates Sterling had an interest in agricultural matters, and the donation to Leahy could well be tied to that. (And that could explain why Sterling would donate both to Leahy (who was part of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party) and to Bradley (who was part of the centrist wing of the party).

So (speculating) it looks like Sterling donated to Bill Bradley because of the basketball connection, to Patrick Leahy because of the agriculture connection, and to Gray Davis because if you're a California sports team owner it helps to have friends (or, at least, not to have enemies) high up in California government. Apart from that he appears to have had no interest in helping the Democrats -- no contributions to campaigns to take the senate, no contributions to campaigns to take the house, no contributions to win the presidency.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Yet another misunderstanding of freedom of speech. The government did not arrest him for what he said. Hence, he his First Amendment rights were not violated.

I never said they were. Just saying it's too bad the thought police couldn't find a way to, you know, make him hurt real bad as revenge for all the hurtful things he said in a private conversation. Just say'n.

i don't know if you are an American or not, regardless you've been around here long enough I'd think you would have at least a grade school understanding of the constitution. Guess not.

What part of the constitution did I get wrong?
I never said they were. Just saying it's too bad the thought police couldn't find a way to, you know, make him hurt real bad as revenge for all the hurtful things he said in a private conversation. Just say'n.

What part of the constitution did I get wrong?

The part where you claimed:

The first amendment is fine, as long as someone doesn't say something offensive, particularly having to do with gays or racial issues. Then all bets are off. Doesn't really matter if it's a private conversation or not. There are limits to the bill of rights you know.

 

[johnny karate]

So in your mind "arbitrarily" means providing a detailed analysis which neither you nor anybody else here have even attempted to rebut?

I should have made this clear before, and it's my fault for not doing so: I don't recognize the authority of your "detailed analysis".

Just because someone takes an inordinate amount of time to make a bare assertion doesn't make it any less a bare assertion. Simply typing "Nuh-uh!" would have been much more succinct and contained exactly as much substantiation.

To wit:

Because in public speaking, you generally want your allusions and references to be understood by the audience, which in the instant case was diverse in terms of age and political ideology (and probably in other ways). In speaking in 2002, references to "all these problems over all these years" was most likely to relatively recent problems the country faced. It would have been odd indeed if he actually had in mind turmoil in the 1950s and 1960s, and perhaps even odder if he thought the recent problems I referenced were caused by the end of Jim Crow.

On top of that, I really don't think that Trent Lott believes that segregation was a good thing. This is one of those things we'll probably have to agree to disagree on. If you're inclined to believe Lott is a racist, then you will regard his gaffe as a Kinsley gaffe. As I pointed out in another post, this is why it may seem to liberals that conservatives are more likely to defend a conservative caught in one of these kinds of controversies. And of course, vice versa.

I mentioned earlier that Joe Biden told the Boston marathon bombing survivors that "it was worth it!" Not once, but twice, and then he said he really meant it. His supporters tried to defend him by arguing that he meant that "it was worth it" to take time out of his busy schedule to attend the memorial and hear the survivors speak. I think that's ridiculous, in part, I'll admit, because I'm predisposed to believe that Biden's brain runs about 30 seconds behind his heart. I don't think he's a bad guy actually. Quite the contrary. He probably is a wonderful grandfather.

See how that post just rambles on and yet doesn't offer anything more than assertions? That's called sophistry, and is not usually recognized as a valid form of argument.

You've created a trump card for yourself in asserting that in any instance we simply write off what someone says as "nonsensical" instead of assigning actual meaning and intent to their words. That way, no matter how explicitly something is expressed, you can pretend the person saying it didn't really say it.

Except of course when it come to Joe Biden. Then we must interpret his words in the most damning light possible, no matter how vague his actual words are.

 

[ABC10]

No, it isn't.

Clive Bundy is still a racist scumbag.

Just like Sterling.

Not so! Clive praised blacks and Mexicans . Poor 81 year old Don is a sad example of a foolish, silly olde man in his dotage with a young sextet - kinda like Marshall and Anne Nicole. Oh Lord, save us from ourselves. Still Don did give lots of money and free tickets to the LA NAACP. They may be crying in their cups now, but clearly in an earlier life were thankful for his support. That's how the NAACP Award came about.