Moderated Donald Sterling, Owner of the Clippers, is Racist

[johnny karate]

Because that's their job. Expose, ridicule, and ultimately punish people with wrong thoughts and in this case, anyone connected to those people, include people that have received their dirty money.

The thought police have actually had it pretty easy of late, because dip**** racists seem to really enjoy not keeping their racism to themselves.

 

[johnny karate]

Thanks Sez. I am posting my own thoughts, views, opinions while sincere and expressing a direct, honest expression of them. "Difference of opinion" acciording to the great Mark Twain " is why we have horse races".

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

 

[DavidJames]

And yours does?

My opinion is based on their actions. They gave up $3million for kidney research because the guy giving it to them turned out to be a racist.

-$3million for scientific research
+$3million for a rich racist guy

That is the result of their action. And there's no guarantee he'll donate it to someone else. None of this is in dispute.

Even if their move was merely a calculated effort to somehow secure more donations in the future, it's an ends-justify-the-means gamble. Any donations they lost in the future would probably just go to another university. So yes, I call it a selfish PR move and probably not even an effective one.

I'll leave it at this. Before I accuse someone of being selfish and more concerned about PR, I require proof. You, apparently, it just dribbles out. Here's a hint, the "proof" you posted doesn't prove motive (which is that I asked) , only that they did it.

I'll also go with the default position of an organization who's business is fund raising to perform their jobs with the business goals in mind. You to prefer to
assume the worst.

Have a great day.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't care about basketball, the NBA, or Sterling.

Same here.

But he's still a racist scumbag.

 

[johnny karate]

And yours does?

My opinion is based on their actions. They gave up $3million for kidney research because the guy giving it to them turned out to be a racist.

-$3million for scientific research
+$3million for a rich racist guy

That is the result of their action. And there's no guarantee he'll donate it to someone else. None of this is in dispute.

Even if their move was merely a calculated effort to somehow secure more donations in the future, it's an ends-justify-the-means gamble. Any donations they lost in the future would probably just go to another university. So yes, I call it a selfish PR move and probably not even an effective one.

Here's the contact info for the UCLA Nephrology Division:
http://www.nephrology.med.ucla.edu/staff.html

You should share with them your crackerjack analysis of their business practices.

I'm sure they would greatly appreciate your input.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Because that's their job. Expose, ridicule, and ultimately punish people with wrong thoughts and in this case, anyone connected to those people, include people that have received their dirty money.

I think someone has a real problem with people disagreeing with them. Especially if those people do so in a vocal and public manner.

It's called free speech; something you claim to hold in high esteem.

Deal with it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Business doesn't involve morals. There was no downside here. PC trumped wellness.

Ahem... Oskar Schindler

 

[applecorped]

Only pure people can be helpful.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A depressing number of people on Twitter think what the NBA is doing is a 1st amendment issues, and a subset of those people think that Sterling should sue them on 1st amendment grounds. *sigh*

If there's a hashtag related these views, it might be a good idea to throw this link at those people: xkcd: Free Speech.

And the hover text, although it's a bit long for Twitter:

I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

 

[ABC10]

Same here.

But he's still a racist scumbag.

Actually I think he is a sad olde man who got his d*** caught in a wringer.

 

[Neally]

The thought police have actually had it pretty easy of late, because dip**** racists seem to really enjoy not keeping their racism to themselves.

They're helped tremendously when private conversations are made public, which like I said, would be made a whole lot easier if they could access them more directly and not have to wait for random mistresses/ex's to broadcast them.

But now they've got a bit of work ahead. Going back many years and digging out everyone that ever received money from Sterling, and shaming them to give it all back.

It's called free speech; something you claim to hold in high esteem.

Deal with it.

The thought police certainly within the law to ferret out and shame the bad thinkers. I never said otherwise. Unlike you, I don't care for it, but they do have that right.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Actually I think he is a sad olde man who got his d*** caught in a wringer.

Yes, I acknowledge that it is possible for racist scumbags to also get their d**** caught in a wringer.

 

[ABC10]

Ahem... Oskar Schindler

Ah Oskar, RIP good and faithful servant. Thanks for your contribution to G-d & good.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The thought police certainly within the law to ferret out and shame the bad thinkers. I never said otherwise. Unlike you, I don't care for it, but they do have that right.

Awww, isn't that cute? You've found another toy phrase to throw around.

Good for you!

 

[ABC10]

Yes, I acknowledge that it is possible for racist scumbags to also get their d**** caught in a wringer.

Non racist too. The struggle between the big and little head goes back to Adam.

 

[Neally]

Awww, isn't that cute? You've found another toy phrase to throw around.

Good for you!

I expected something better from the "Intellectual Gladiator" title under you avatar. I expect too much.

 

[Locknar]

Thread is Moderated, pending review & clean out.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[SezMe]

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is some long term calculation to maximize their future donations. But if it is that is sad because it means there really are people who would refuse to donate to them on the basis that a racist person donated to them. I think it's that they care more about PR than kidney research.

Numerous private, for profit corporations withdrew their sponsorships with the Clippers as a result of Sterling's filthy mouth. Now presumably all these companies have sharp marketing and accounting folk who know how to balance short- and long-term gains and loses. They all judged that a previous mutually beneficial association with the Clippers no longer was a net positive.

Why would UCLA not be able to perform the same calculation?

 

[Meed]

Yes it is. Since rich racist guy already has the $3million, his not giving it to someone is certainly not "+$3million" for him; it's actually a net change of exactly zero. Likewise for the would-be beneficiary; they do not currently have the money, so they would not actually be losing anything at all if they do not accept the donation - it would also be a zero net change. So, portraying Sterling as gaining something and the would-be beneficiary as losing something in this case is incorrect and misleading.

The effect is the same. He would be losing $3million and scientific research would be gaining $3million if not for them declining to accept his money. I could word it as "$3million that would have gone to kidney research stays in the possession of a rich racist guy" to be more precise, but I think you're splitting hairs here.

I'll leave it at this. Before I accuse someone of being selfish and more concerned about PR, I require proof. You, apparently, it just dribbles out. Here's a hint, the "proof" you posted doesn't prove motive (which is that I asked) , only that they did it.

Motive can never really be proven can it? That doesn't mean we can never make judgments about it. And regardless of their motives, I have a problem with their actions.

 

[Steve]

Business doesn't involve morals. There was no downside here. PC trumped wellness.

Then why did you say:

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