Moderated Donald Sterling, Owner of the Clippers, is Racist

[Mumbles]

You and I may know that Conservative Treehouse is an unreliable and dishonest source, but not everyone does. I think it was worth my time last night providing folks with one more example of it. My hope is that ABC10 will learn to check a bit more carefully before passing on unsubtantiated claims and that ABC10 will learn more about how to differentiate between honest sources which accurately quote their source material and dishonest ones which pretend to be providing evidence to support their claims when they actually aren't.

Okay, you do that.

I probably shouldn't have replied to this thread, except for the NAACP thing. All I see at that conservative treehouse site is them egging on hatred of me, based entirely on my skin color. You be the rational one, because I'm *sick* of being subjected to this nonsense about how I'm a thug if I cover my head in the rain, or if I run away from a few kids fighting the cops, which is *exactly* what they represent.

So, Okay, It's on you. I welcome you, and good luck.

 

[pgwenthold]

We are seeing this exact behavior currently play out on this forum.

Liberals are openly admonishing Sterling (if the guy truly even is a Democrat, not that it would matter), while conservatives use all sorts of rationalizations and disingenuous arguments to defend Bundy.

What? Sterling is a democrat and a big supporter of the democratic party?

Well then, I guess, as a pretty solid liberal, that means that....I stand by everything I have said above. The guy should be out of the league, and the players should refuse to play until the NBA does something about him.

(I saw a comment yesterday about how "The players won't do anything - it's the playoffs!"; interesting, it's like "Racism is bad, but these are the playoffs. This is important!" For shame)

 

[turingtest]

Feel free to ignore it if you wish. But 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.

You and I may know that Conservative Treehouse is an unreliable and dishonest source, but not everyone does. I think it was worth my time last night providing folks with one more example of it. My hope is that ABC10 will learn to check a bit more carefully before passing on unsubtantiated claims and that ABC10 will learn more about how to differentiate between honest sources which accurately quote their source material and dishonest ones which pretend to be providing evidence to support their claims when they actually aren't.

I think it was an effort well worth making, and certainly appreciated by me. The important point is the "echo chamber" effect, and how folks like ABC rely on it without even being aware of it.

 

[Nova Land]

Nova Land:
He's a rich guy.
Has a charitable foundation.
Cheats on his wife
Seems to have a visceral objection to "minorities" in his private life ...

Yes. All those appear to be true statements supported by the evidence.

But those aren't the claims ABC10 was making based on what turned out to be dishonest evidence. Here are the claims which were presented and which I was disputing:

Sterling is a white racist Democrat fundraiser and supporte[r] ...

... Sterling is a rich Democratic fundraise[r], donor and supporter scheduled to get a life time achievement award from the NAACP ...

... Sterling is a rich white Dem racist.

Of these claims, the only one we know to be true is that Sterling was scheduled to get a lifetime achievement award from a local branch of the NAACP.

ABC10 made that claim once, appended at the end of a longer claim. The key point ABC10 kept making repeatedly was that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser and a significant donor.

Sterling does not appear to be either. He appears to be someone who back in the 1980s was giving about $1000 a year to Democratic candidates -- and then abruptly stopped doing so after 1991.

It's possible he's still a Democratic supporter. It's also possible something soured him on the Democrats in 1992. I don't know and neither do you. If it's something which matters to you, feel free to research it; I'm curious what the truth of the matter is.

But to want to turn a blind eye to dishonest claims, as you seem to be doing, surprises me. Until and unless evidence is provided that Sterling is a Democratic fundraiser, a Democratic bundler, a current Democratic donor, or even a current registered Democrat, people should refrain from echoing such claims.

 

[pgwenthold]

So looking forward to Monday to see how Big Ed and the other MSNBC dopes approach this.

I realize Keith Olbermann is not on MSNBC anymore, but did you see what he had to say about it?

 

[pgwenthold]

https://movies.yahoo.com/news/clipp...tributed-owner-donald-sterling-230000577.html

The Clippers team said in a statement that the woman on the tape is “the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would ‘get even.’”

“Mr. Sterling is emphatic that what is reflected on that recording is not consistent with, nor does it reflect his views, beliefs or feelings,” the statement says. “It is the antithesis of who he is, what he believes and how he has lived his life. He feels terrible that such sentiments are being attributed to him and apologizes to anyone who might have been hurt by them. He is also upset and apologizes for sentiments attributed to him about Earvin Johnson. He has long considered Magic a friend and has only the utmost respect and admiration for him — both in terms of who he is and what he has achieved. We are investigating this matter.”
..."

I don't get this. "The sentiments do not reflect his attitude."

First, note that he has not denied that it is him.

But I'm trying to figure out what "does not reflect his attitude" mean. Does he want his girlfriend bringing black people to games or not? If yes, then why did he tell her not to?

 

[Nova Land]

I probably shouldn't have replied to this thread, except for the NAACP thing. All I see at that conservative treehouse site is them egging on hatred of me, based entirely on my skin color. You be the rational one, because I'm *sick* of being subjected to this nonsense about how I'm a thug if I cover my head in the rain, or if I run away from a few kids fighting the cops, which is *exactly* what they represent.

So, Okay, It's on you. I welcome you, and good luck.

Ah. That puts things in a different light.

Apologies for the tone of my previous comment. I'm short on sleep and mainly posted last night to get some respite from a dozen other things I should be working on.

Because I tend to write overlong posts, my post may have come across as an attempt to defend racist Democrats. That was not my intent. Donald Sterling's racism is offensive regardless of where on the political spectrum he falls. But if claims are made about where on the spectrum he falls, I want to hold them to the same standard I'd want claims about psychic abilities to be held.

 

[pgwenthold]

Wait just a minute...

Define "free to say it."

The only way it makes ANY sense ("he is entitled to free speech") is in the context of government regulation, a la the first amendment.

Because any suggestion that "he is entitled to free speech" involves free from any repercussion from the public is not even remotely close to realistic. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you wouldn't be suggesting anything like that.

I think you're confusing a constitutional right with the opprobrium and censure that is going to personally befall this man, the former of which I was not referring to and latter of which is not a strawman.

OK, it's not a strawman, it's just WRONG. He is not guaranteed to be able to say it free of opprobrium and censure. He completely faces the risk of those, not free at all.

ETA: All that aside, let's clairify: what is "non-free" speech?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Freedom of speech does mean freedom from (certain) consequences. Just not from all consequences. YMMV.

Yes, in a broad sense, freedom of speech does mean freedom from (certain) consequences. But if you'll notice my original comment said "he" doesn't have freedom of consequences. Specific, rather than general.

 

[pgwenthold]

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.)

I think this is important.

Let us keep in mind that it was ABC10, based on the claims of The Conservative Treehouse, who introduced the democratic fundraiser concept. Not that it was at all relevant, as has been demonstrated, but he brought it up as an attempt to discredit democrats (you know, the completely wishful thinking about how MSNBC would defend him and such). In that respect, it is worth addressing the dishonesty.

However, in the end, ABC10's attempt to link it to politics is a complete red herring, because democrats aren't lining up to defend him, and they wouldn't, even if he was a democratic fundraiser.

 

[ABC10]

I realize Keith Olbermann is not on MSNBC anymore, but did you see what he had to say about it?

I didn't. What did "perennially fired Keith" have to say? I can take some of those dopes at MSNBC (not Lawrence, Joy or Rachael while making an effort to support Big Ed's show, everyday), but Keith's mean spirit is too much for me. Boycotted him for years. Dem Sterling has a constitutional right to invoke free speech, not like anyone, hold his own opinions and reap the consequences of his actions.

 

[varwoche]

Ah. That puts things in a different light.

Apologies for the tone of my previous comment. I'm short on sleep and mainly posted last night to get some respite from a dozen other things I should be working on.

Because I tend to write overlong posts, my post may have come across as an attempt to defend racist Democrats. That was not my intent. Donald Sterling's racism is offensive regardless of where on the political spectrum he falls. But if claims are made about where on the spectrum he falls, I want to hold them to the same standard I'd want claims about psychic abilities to be held.

Unnecessary. It's perfectly clear you weren't defending the sketchy source nor democratic racists. People simply need to pay better attention.

 

[ABC10]

I realize Keith Olbermann is not on MSNBC anymore, but did you see what he had to say about it?

Sterling making Clive look good here. Thank G-d for the news cycle.

 

[pgwenthold]

I didn't. What did "perennially fired Keith" have to say?

"Clippers should BOYCOTT the playoffs ... and refuse to step on the court until the NBA takes action against Donald Sterling ."

Sounds like he is pretty supportive, right?

 

[varwoche]

Sterling making Clive look good here. Thank G-d for the news cycle.

As you post these non sequiturs, are you even aware that your claims (and inferences) are being debunked?

 

[ABC10]

I realize Keith Olbermann is not on MSNBC anymore, but did you see what he had to say about it?

I didn't. What did "perennially fired" Keith have to say? I can take some of those dopes at MSNBC (not Lawrence, Joy or Rachael while making an effort to support Big Ed's show, everyday), but Keith's mean spirit is too much for me. Boycotted him for years.

 

[ABC10]

As you post these non sequiturs, are you even aware that your claims (and inferences) are being debunked?

We're having a discussion here. An exchange of opinions and ideas including our 1st Amendment Rights. Anxious to see what the multi million ball players will do too - both the Clippers and opposing teams. Fox will be fun. Sadly, CNN is still consumed with the plane.

 

[newyorkguy]

....Sterling evidently gave nothing to Democrats during the entirety of the Clinton years. He gave nothing to Democrats during the entirety of the W. years. And he has given nothing to Democrats during the entirety of the Obama years. Not exactly a major Democratic contributor or Democratic fundraiser, then.

So to recap...

I enjoyed reading the above post. I found it informative and interesting, like a well-done investigative reporting piece. Wish there were more like it here.

Many thanks.

 

[Mumbles]

"Clippers should BOYCOTT the playoffs ... and refuse to step on the court until the NBA takes action against Donald Sterling ."

Sounds like he is pretty supportive, right?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Back at my last job, I got to see horribly racist pictures of Obama. Like, the one of him as a witch Doctor, or shining Sarah Palin's Shoes, or of him saying "I've got jobs" and a bunch of black people running away. And these weren't emails, they were all posted in public. And I took it all, because I needed the paycheck. This Sterling idiot could be rich for the rest of his life off of what he has now.

I'll admit I'm freaking out a bit...but...

Why think the Clippers layers should just boycott? Sterling's the problem here. They can penalize players for using curse words on Twitter, why not slap owners for being an idiot?

 

[pgwenthold]

Why think the Clippers layers should just boycott? Sterling's the problem here. They can penalize players for using curse words on Twitter, why not slap owners for being an idiot?

Um, that's the point.

The players should boycott until the NBA does something.

I agree completely. The PLAYERS need to make it clear to the league that THEY will not accept this crap. No "suspension" or anything, just get that guy away from the league.