Moderated Donald Sterling, Owner of the Clippers, is Racist

[sunmaster14]

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

Ok, so what if people felt so strongly about an incredibly wealthy, elderly Jewish man being racist against blacks that it stoked their own latent anti-Semitism and gave them an urge to hurl anti-Semitic invective at Sterling. Of course they're allowed to give in to their urge, but should they?

<snip>
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.

I disagree for two reasons. First, depending on how discreet the racism was, it's not nearly as bad as overt racism. All that really matters are observable actions. I have friends who may privately believe that I should and will burn in hell because of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but as long as they treat me well (as they do), I don't really care. Second, there is a legal doctrine called "fruit of the poisoned tree." The idea there is that in order to discourage illegal searches by police, any evidence that results from an illegal search, even several levels removed from the original breach, should be excluded. Even though this is not a legal proceeding, I think a similar doctrine should apply, at least to some degree. Evidence of somebody's evil character, illegally or unethically obtained, should be discounted somewhat in order to discourage such breaches in the future.

Bottom line is that the fact that Sterling's racist comments were made in private is a mitigating factor, or at least it should be in theory. Perhaps not much of one in this particular case, but I can think of other instances which could arise where the differences between overt and private comments would be quite meaningful.

 

[sunmaster14]

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?

How many times is it worth repeating? Each time the troll returns? Every time somebody asks why we're discussing it? It's a recipe for nauseum ad nauseum.

 

[ABC10]

Obviously Sterling was quite discreet in his racist views as the NAACP in Los Angeles had already given him a prior award for supporting them and their goals and was on the cusp of giving him a Life Time Achievement Award.
Sterling is already a Billionaire. Don't see him overwhelmed with more multi millions.

 

[johnny karate]

I've given you a hypothetical. Is the scenario I've given acceptable to you? If a court says so, does that make it right?

I haven't been provided enough information. Kindly furnish the imaginary contract you signed with your imaginary employer so I can determine the terms of your imaginary employment and properly assess the imaginary decision of the imaginary court.

It has everything to do with the thought police and public pressure.

The pressure was internal. The NBA didn't want his guy in their organization anymore, and expelled him in accordance with their by-laws.

Again Sterling said nothing derogatory about the NBA nor about his own team.

Please read the NBA's constitution and guidelines I linked upthread to learn why this is irrelevant.

He was punished for a private conversation.

He was punished for violating the terms of the NBA's constitution and by-laws in accordance with those terms.

I never said it did. They may have a legal right to punish someone for their thoughts, even if obtained illegally. Does that make it right?

Yes. The terms of the NBA constitution and by-laws are quite clear on how this works. Sterling was clearly in violation of those terms.

Right because if a lot of people agree on something, that makes it true and correct.

No, that's just silly.

But a private organization is perfectly justified in handling its internal affairs as it sees fit in accordance with its own by-laws.

I'm not sure why everyone else but Sterling is the bad guy. Must be that renowned conservative sense of personal responsibility I am always hearing so much about.

 

[johnny karate]

Obviously Sterling was quite discreet in his racist views as the NAACP in Los Angeles had already given him a prior award for supporting them and their goals and was on the cusp of giving him a Life Time Achievement Award.
Sterling is already a Billionaire. Don't see him overwhelmed with more multi millions.

In what specific way did The Conservative Treehouse convince you they had the right Donald Sterling that you now find lacking?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

The goal was to remove Sterling from the NBA.

Mission: Accomplished.

Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Neally]

I haven't been provided enough information. Kindly furnish the imaginary contract you singed with your imaginary employer so I can determine the terms of your imaginary employment and properly assess the imaginary decision of the imaginary court.

Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of our Christian customers, clients, or suppliers, or statements that the same may find offensive, shall be terminated without notice.

But a private organization is perfectly justified in handling its internal affairs as it sees fit in accordance with its own by-laws.

So you have no problem with a private company choosing to terminate someone for expressing support for gay rights in a private conversation, regardless of whether such a specific condition is included in their employment contract or not, right?

 

[SezMe]

.... you and others here have allowed yourselves to get caught up responding to an obvious troll.

1. It is not obvious at all. In fact, while I completely disagree with ABC10 (or were you referring to Neally?) I take his posts as a direct, honest expression of his views.
2. That's offensive. My mouse lingered over the report button for a long time before moving on.

 

[Giz]

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!

It sounds crazy... but UCLA are probably concerned that the name of their institution will become linked to Sterling (Sterling had already taken out newspaper adverts publicizing the connection) and that becoming known as the Racist Bastards School of Kidney Research is more damaging than simply passing up $3m and disavowing any connection.

 

[Checkmite]

Ok, so what if people felt so strongly about an incredibly wealthy, elderly Jewish man being racist against blacks that it stoked their own latent anti-Semitism and gave them an urge to hurl anti-Semitic invective at Sterling. Of course they're allowed to give in to their urge, but should they?

By loading your question in this manner, you're forcing a juxtaposition of two issues that actually aren't related. Whether people should or should not consider an inadvertently-public fact that was intended to be private, and how acceptable hurling racist invective in any situation may be, are two separate questions and the arguments for or against one have no bearing on the arguments for or against the other.

I disagree for two reasons. First, depending on how discreet the racism was, it's not nearly as bad as overt racism. All that really matters are observable actions. I have friends who may privately believe that I should and will burn in hell because of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but as long as they treat me well (as they do), I don't really care.

But that's your prerogative. If you felt that someone believing you should burn in hell is offensive enough that you personally no longer care to interact with them, that would also be your prerogative.

Second, there is a legal doctrine called "fruit of the poisoned tree." The idea there is that in order to discourage illegal searches by police, any evidence that results from an illegal search, even several levels removed from the original breach, should be excluded. Even though this is not a legal proceeding, I think a similar doctrine should apply, at least to some degree. Evidence of somebody's evil character, illegally or unethically obtained, should be discounted somewhat in order to discourage such breaches in the future.

Bottom line is that the fact that Sterling's racist comments were made in private is a mitigating factor, or at least it should be in theory. Perhaps not much of one in this particular case, but I can think of other instances which could arise where the differences between overt and private comments would be quite meaningful.

While I understand and support the reasoning behind this doctrine as used in the legal system, I simply am not convinced it does, should, or can be expected to apply to private individuals' personal decisions about how they feel about and interact with others. Sterling, in this case, is evidently a racial bigot. His private conversation having been revealed makes him a victim of a breach of privacy, but it doesn't make him not a racial bigot. If I have a serious aversion to racial bigotry, of course I'm going to disassociate myself with him.

 

[sunmaster14]

It is not obvious at all. In fact, while I completely disagree with ABC10 (or were you referring to Neally?) I take his posts as a direct, honest expression of his views.

Interesting. Well, it's somebody who announced himself to the thread with this:

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.

and then has consistently refused to engage in logical debate while continuing to post inflammatory things. Much of what he writes may well be based in sincerely held beliefs, but his intent is clearly to inflame and distract and annoy some of the participants here. That is, by definition, trollish behavior. He has done a bang-up job too, by the way. I actually think his trolling is of the highest quality. But, hey, if you want to debate me about whether or not he is a troll, I'm game.

That's offensive. My mouse lingered over the report button for a long time before moving on.

Put up or shut up, sez me I.

 

[Meed]

It sounds crazy... but UCLA are probably concerned that the name of their institution will become linked to Sterling (Sterling had already taken out newspaper adverts publicizing the connection) and that becoming known as the Racist Bastards School of Kidney Research is more damaging than simply passing up $3m and disavowing any connection.

They care more about appearing less racist than thou than they do about $3million going to kidney research. Selfish, insane, ridiculous.

 

[Steve]

They care more about appearing less racist than thou than they do about $3million going to kidney research. Selfish, insane, ridiculous.

IMO they care more about maintaining long-term, reliable, non-racist sources for donations than they do about this particular 3 million. Short term pain.....

 

[Meed]

Where are these sources that refuse to donate to anything that a racist has donated to?

 

[DavidJames]

They care more about appearing less racist than thou than they do about $3million going to kidney research. Selfish, insane, ridiculous.

IMO they care more about maintaining long-term, reliable, non-racist sources for donations than they do about this particular 3 million. Short term pain.....

Where are these sources that refuse to donate to anything that a racist has donated to?

I have no idea but I wouldn't be surprised that UCLA would have more experience and a better feel for how their response to this issue would impact their fund raising and I highly doubt they would do anything which would have a long term negative impact. But then again, maybe random Internet posters know better.

 

[Steve]

I have no idea but I wouldn't be surprised that UCLA would have more experience and a better feel for how their response to this issue would impact their fund raising and I highly doubt they would do anything which would have a long term negative impact. But then again, maybe random Internet posters know better.

This is close enough to my response that I will just let it stand. Thanks DavidJames.

cornsail, I did note that my comment was "IMO" (in my opinion). If I am expected to provide outside sources for my opinion then please tell us - where are these sources that say:

They care more about appearing less racist than thou than they do about $3million going to kidney research. Selfish, insane, ridiculous.

 

[Neally]

It sounds crazy... but UCLA are probably concerned that the name of their institution will become linked to Sterling (Sterling had already taken out newspaper adverts publicizing the connection) and that becoming known as the Racist Bastards School of Kidney Research is more damaging than simply passing up $3m and disavowing any connection.

The thought police now have to track down and make a comprehensive list of anyone and everyone that Sterling has ever paid, then shame them into give all that money back.

 

[Steve]

The thought police now have to track down and make a comprehensive list of anyone and everyone that Sterling has ever paid, then shame them into give all that money back.

Why?

 

[dudalb]

It has everything to do with the thought police and public pressure. Again Sterling said nothing derogatory about the NBA nor about his own team. He was punished for a private conversation.
[ /QUOTE]

Sterling did something even worse;he insulted a core customer base for the NBA.

What is scary is that I am now convinced that some conservatives support racism on the grounds if the Liberals do not like it it must be right.

 

[applecorped]

IMO they care more about maintaining long-term, reliable, non-racist sources for donations than they do about this particular 3 million. Short term pain.....

Really? Moral outrage about something someone said is more important than finding a cure for kidney disease?

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to to take the money? Are appearances more important than progress?