Moderated Donald Sterling, Owner of the Clippers, is Racist

[sunmaster14]

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not it was a "private conversation". The content is now public, and people are allowed to react to it however they will and express themselves accordingly.

Putting aside that some reactions would be illegal (e.g. literally putting his head on a pike), of course people are allowed to react as they are. The interesting question is whether they should react as they are.

In this case, I think the reaction is appropriate, but only because:

(1) Sterling's long history of having credible accusations of racism made against him means his racism either really did inform his actions or was public (or both), and therefore was damaging to the league;
(2) The fact that 80% (don't know the number precisely, but it is very high) of the players are black;
(3) That the league already has a public relations issue with the large disparity between the % of blacks in management and ownership roles vs the % who are players.

I suspect that if his racist comments had been aimed at Mexicans instead of blacks, this would have blown over real fast.

All that being said, it does make me uncomfortable if a private spat between two "lovers," recorded in secret, could lead to such severe consequences for the one saying politically incorrect things.

I think privacy is important for reasons too numerous to list right now, and I think we should be judged only on our observable actions. Speaking to your lover is about as private as things get, short of just thinking things in your own head.

One thought experiment is how would we feel if Sterling had merely conveyed his racism to his psychiatrist, and then his psychiatrist shared it with the world? An even more extreme example could be dreamed up if technology progresses to the point where we could see parts of the brain light up under MRI when racism is consciously "thought."

I personally would not like my own private thoughts subject to the public spotlight, nor would I particularly like to know other people's.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Uh no, that is exactly what I want to see - a public record with his entire name including Donald Tokowitz Sterling typed or printed on it. A copy of the Life Time Achievement Award would be good too. NAACP accepting large sums of money from him in spite of knowing what he was is not special at all. Happens all the time. And it was the 2nd award. Looks like blood money doesn't go as far as it used too. Not so special.
Oh that poor sad olde olde man. Here are folk in the middle of the night, in jammies, drinking coffee making fun of him cause it is the most entertaining thing to do for them at 5AM PDT when they are awake for what ever reason.

When CTH told you he was a democrat, they linked to this article, whic only says:

Donald Sterling, Los Angeles Clippers

Records show Sterling has donated just $6,000, with no activity since the early 1990s. He supported Gray Davis early in his career, as well as Bill Bradley.

Yet no actual copy of the records. And no middle name.

And this article that shows he donated to some democratic candidates over 20 years ago. But doesn't actually show you the records, just says:

This data is compiled using OpenSecrets bulk data downloads. LittleSis analysts match federal campaign contributions given by individuals in our database using the donation matching tool.


But that was enough proof for you to determine he was a Dem, right ?

Look, this person on CTH even thanks g-d that Sterling is a Dem !!

 

[varwoche]

Because if he'd have been a Democrat then the republaconservatives would have scored a point, but since he's a Republican the point was scored by the demoliberals.

Can you point to any specific examples? (Rebuttals of the false claim that Sterling is a democrat don't count.)

I can point to plenty examples of "republaconservatives" trying to score points. Limbaugh and ABC10 for instance.

 

[varwoche]

I'm like to see a voter registration card in his name, Donald Tokowitz Sterling not some last name only thing. Asking for validation in this day and age is not unreasonable. The truth will set us all free.
How many Sterling are there in LA?

Once again, the search is based on last name + birth date + zip code + street number.

Zip code 90210 has population of 21k.

Sharpen your pencil.

 

[pgwenthold]

Once again, the search is based on last name + birth date + zip code + street number.

Zip code 90210 has population of 21k.

Sharpen your pencil.

I'm sure it's just loaded with 80+ year old people named Sterling...

 

[Nova Land]

This sidetrack [of whether Sterling is a Democrat or Republican] is bizarre. Is the right wing trying to make political hay of this?

Yes. Or at least they were over the weekend, back when it was common knowledge among in right-wing circles that Sterling is a Democrat. Even semi-respectable sites such as National Review Online were taking part.

After a spate of incidents in which right-wing people made racist comments it appeared to some on the right that now they had an incident in which a left-leaning person (or, at least, a Democrat) had done the same, and the echo chamber went to work overtime.

There were two main types of comments they were trying to post as widely as possible. One was the Nelson Muntz Ha, ha, this guy's a Democrat type. The other was: The media covers the story non-stop when Republicans or Teapartiers get caught making racist remarks, but they're going to sweep this one under the carpet. And the Democrats will be saying that what Sterling said wasn't really racist and wasn't that big a deal if it was.

You can see several examples of the Ha Ha type

in post # 31:

There is a G-d. Thank you G-d that Sterling is a white racist Democrat fundraiser and supported. Sterling scheduled to a Life Time Achievement Award from the NAACP next month along with all time race hustler Rev. Al. Can he be run out of basketball? How sweet it is. Looking good for Clive Bundy.

... 24 minutes later in post # 32:

Particularly when the speaker Sterling is a rich Democratic fundraise, donor and supporter scheduled to get a life time achievement award from the NAACP!

"There are no laughs in Mudville, racist Sterling and Dems have struck out".

... and 6 minutes later in post # 34:

Clive was praising blacks and latinos while Sterling is a rich white Dem racist.

As you can see (by the frequency with which ABC10 repeated these items, and the gratuitous nature of their inclusion in the comments), this was more an attempt to spread a meme than to engage in discussion. I agree with you it is bizarre that people were trying to make political hay out of the (incorrect) idea that Sterling is a Democrat. But many were.

I entered this thread back on page 3 with two purposes. One was to address the idea (which you can find in numerous other ABC10 posts if you'll go back to the early pages) that Democrats would try to defend Sterling's comments since he was one of them and that the media would try to brush this whole story under the carpet since the media is in the Democrats' pocket. It was (and is) my belief that those on the left would condemn Sterling's remark regardless of what his party affiliation turned out to be.

My other purpose was to examine the claims ABC10 was echoing (that Donald Sterling is a Democratic Party fundraiser; that Donald Sterling is a Democratic Party Donor; and that Donald Sterling is a Democrat) since these did not appear to be well-founded. My concern in posting was not to defend Democrats, it was to expose the dishonesty of the Conservative Treehouse article (and of the people who they'd duped in echoing their claims).

 

[Nova Land]

Here's my post from page 3 explaining my reasons for questioning the claims about Sterling's party affiliation. I think this is worth repeating, because I believe this is the basic interest a number of us here at JREF -- on the left and the right -- have.

... I believe that false claims based on spurious evidence are always worth exposing.

Instead of offering honest evidence for the claim that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser, ABC10 provided a link to The Conservative Treehouse. The Conservative Treehouse did indeed claim that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser -- and in supposed support of this claim they provided a link to another site, RealGM.com. But the material posted at RealGM said no such thing.

That's dishonest. But it's the kind of dishonesty which fools a lot of people -- as witnessed by the number of folks like ABC10 who are parroting claims that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser and a Democratic bundler.

I don't care much whether Sterling is a Democrat or not. (The key point is that he's a racist and that his racism should be condemned regardless of whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, religious or atheist, vegetarian or non-vegetarian, Dr. Oz fan or Dr. Oz hater.)

But I do care about people using dishonest methods when carrying on discussions. That makes rational discussion more difficult, and makes it harder to determine what the truth of a matter is. Therefore I think it's worth exposing such dishonesty when it occurs...

 

[varwoche]

I'm sure it's just loaded with 80+ year old people named Sterling...

To lay out the probabilities more precisely, how many people registered voters live in 90210 (population 21k) with last name Sterling, birth date 4/26/34, street address number 808?

Yet naked assertions on a sketchy, agenda-driven website are accepted as flat-out fact, no questions asked. ABC10, the different standard you apply to evidence that suits you is something to behold. Twisted kudos, I suppose, for not trying to hide your bias.

 

[sunmaster14]

Here's my post from page 3 explaining my reasons for questioning the claims about Sterling's party affiliation. I think this is worth repeating, because I believe this is the basic interest a number of us here at JREF -- on the left and the right -- have.

I think it is not worth repeating. This sub-topic is incredibly boring, and the only reason that it has received so much attention is that you and others here have allowed yourselves to get caught up responding to an obvious troll. The proper response would have been to have his crap sent to AAH. I have had respectful, well-reasoned posts sent to AAH because somebody somewhere perceived it as being ever so slightly off-topic. Either the policy should be applied consistently, or not at all.

 

[applecorped]

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not it was a "private conversation".

Score one for vindictive gold diggers.

 

[applecorped]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...ift-from-donald-sterling-for-kidney-research/

"Researchers at UCLA will return a portion of a $3 million pledge that Clippers owner Donald Sterling made to support kidney research, school officials announced Tuesday."

Screw helping people. Someone said something!

 

[Matthew Best]

Score one for vindictive gold diggers.

I have no problem with that.

 

[Matthew Best]

"Researchers at UCLA will return a portion of a $3 million pledge that Clippers owner Donald Sterling made to support kidney research, school officials announced Tuesday."

This is just silly.

 

[newyorkguy]

Here's my post from page 3 explaining my reasons for questioning the claims about Sterling's party affiliation. I think this is worth repeating, because I believe this is the basic interest a number of us here at JREF -- on the left and the right -- have.

Instead of offering honest evidence for the claim that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser, ABC10 provided a link to The Conservative Treehouse. The Conservative Treehouse did indeed claim that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser -- and in supposed support of this claim they provided a link to another site, RealGM.com. But the material posted at RealGM said no such thing.

I think it is worth repeating. That the claims that were made were based on nothing. It's the 'anyone can say anything' rule. It makes rational discussion almost impossible. That's what I'm here for; aren't we all?

 

[Checkmite]

Putting aside that some reactions would be illegal (e.g. literally putting his head on a pike), of course people are allowed to react as they are. The interesting question is whether they should react as they are.

If they feel strongly enough about it, then of course they should, as much as they should react to...anything else at all, really.

All that being said, it does make me uncomfortable if a private spat between two "lovers," recorded in secret, could lead to such severe consequences for the one saying politically incorrect things.

I think privacy is important for reasons too numerous to list right now, and I think we should be judged only on our observable actions. Speaking to your lover is about as private as things get, short of just thinking things in your own head.

One thought experiment is how would we feel if Sterling had merely conveyed his racism to his psychiatrist, and then his psychiatrist shared it with the world? An even more extreme example could be dreamed up if technology progresses to the point where we could see parts of the brain light up under MRI when racism is consciously "thought."

I personally would not like my own private thoughts subject to the public spotlight, nor would I particularly like to know other people's.

Certainly you wouldn't; nor would I - and I agree that things like expectations of privacy in certain situations should exist and that it's generally - in some cases perhaps even legally - wrong to infringe upon them. But that doesn't matter once the information for whatever reason becomes known, it is absolutely, 100% irrelevant to how people should respond to public facts. The cat is out of the bag; the elephant is in the room. If your personal wont is to denigrate bigotry and publicly disassociate yourself from known racial bigots, it makes no practical difference whether a certain person had never intended to publicly reveal his racial bigotry. All that matters is that it's now known that's what he is, and people shouldn't be expected to force themselves to pretend that he isn't just because his bigotry was supposed to be kept secret, or the manner in which the secret was revealed was itself ethically questionable. That's an unreasonable expectation to place on anyone.

 

[Unabogie]

Score one for vindictive gold diggers.

It's a sad day for racists everywhere. I hear white hoods are flying at half mast.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think it is not worth repeating. This sub-topic is incredibly boring, and the only reason that it has received so much attention is that you and others here have allowed yourselves to get caught up responding to an obvious troll. The proper response would have been to have his crap sent to AAH. I have had respectful, well-reasoned posts sent to AAH because somebody somewhere perceived it as being ever so slightly off-topic. Either the policy should be applied consistently, or not at all.

Forum Management Feedback is --->

 

[Neally]

Gobsmacked. This may well qualify as the most asinine statement in this thread.

Factually correct actually. Again, he wasn't talking about or on the behalf of the NBA.

AGAIN, you don't know that. Moreover, you've been provided with cites that indicate it is not true.

There have been no such "cites". Simply a rather bizarre claim by one of the parties that she was acting as an "archivist". LOL.

]Sadly, you've proven to be impervious to evidence in this thread.

Sadly, you've resorted to making unsupported claims to try to win the argument.

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not it was a "private conversation". The content is now public, and people are allowed to react to it however they will and express themselves accordingly.

As has been mentioned, no one has said the public shouldn't be allowed to react.

One thought experiment is how would we feel if Sterling had merely conveyed his racism to his psychiatrist, and then his psychiatrist shared it with the world? An even more extreme example could be dreamed up if technology progresses to the point where we could see parts of the brain light up under MRI when racism is consciously "thought."

Wet dreams of the thought police.

Oh and mentioning again, Sterling may end up crying all the way to the bank,

"This may set up nicely for him," said David Carter, executive director of USC's Sports Business Institute. "He could ride off into the sunset a la Frank McCourt."

Much like the former Dodgers owner, Sterling might be forced to sell his franchise at an opportune moment, shortly before the NBA renegotiates its lucrative national television contract. An auction-like frenzy could drive the price toward $1 billion.

The thought police flag will be at half mast if that sad day comes.

 

[Meed]

Can you point to any specific examples? (Rebuttals of the false claim that Sterling is a democrat don't count.)

I can point to plenty examples of "republaconservatives" trying to score points. Limbaugh and ABC10 for instance.

Nope. See my initial response to A'isha.

This is just silly.

More than silly. It's INSANE in the membrane. Please tell me that isn't for real.

 

[Olowkow]

Oh and mentioning again, Sterling may end up crying all the way to the bank,

Oh, to be a humiliated, disgraced and shunned 81 year old with yet another billion. Winning!