Donald Sterling is not a progressive thinker

[Whiskeyjack]

I mean, are you saying that there is something wrong with members of a partnership or LLC expelling a member because they think their association with that member makes their product toxic and could hurt their economic interests by reducing sponsorship dollars or driving away consumers? I do find that conclusion outrageous -- I mean why do Sterling's rights and interests take precedence over the other owners'? -- but it did seem to be what you were saying to me. Please explain to me what I've misunderstood.

I can't speak for gk, but many of the posts here expressing discomfort with this situation have to do not with the legal formalities, but with the McCarthy-esque factors at work here. See irishfan's post above for how such situations can get out of control easily. "Do you now or have you ever expressed, publicly or privately, antipathy toward a government-approved victim class?" These sorts of ideological purity tests may be Progressive, but they're thoroughly illiberal.

This is similar to the recent dust-up over Brandon Eich being forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla for having donated $1k to California's Prop 8 years ago. Are we comfortable with these sorts of witch hunts?

To be clear, I have zero problem with the legalities involved here, nor do I have any sympathy for Sterling. The guy's clearly a racist scumbag, and regardless of whether he continues to own the Clippers, he'll still have piles of money to console himself with. But I'm dismayed by the frequency with which public figures are getting attacked for holding unpopular political or religious beliefs.

 

[irishfan]

Question for everyone regarding this being a "slippery slope" as Cuban put it. Let's assume that Sterling is unanimously voted out and has to sell the team. What would be your punishments then for this:

1) A white basketball player pulling the Riley Cooper and using the n-word on camera.
2) A player pulling the Jason Kidd and pleading guilty to domestic abuse.
3) A religious owner is on the record as saying that he does not support gay marriage. Gays have begun to speak out against him demanding that he sell his team due to discrimination.

Would these players and owner also be banned from the league for life?

 

[wizards8507]

I can't speak for gk, but many of the posts here expressing discomfort with this situation have to do not with the legal formalities, but with the McCarthy-esque factors at work here. See irishfan's post above for how such situations can get out of control easily. "Do you now or have you ever expressed, publicly or privately, antipathy toward a government-approved victim class?" These sorts of ideological purity tests may be Progressive, but they're thoroughly illiberal.

This is similar the recent dust-up over Brandon Eich being forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla for having donated $1k to California's Prop 8 years ago. Are we comfortable with these sorts of witch hunts?

To be clear, I have zero problem with the legalities involved here, nor do I have any sympathy for Sterling. The guy's clearly a racist scumbag, and regardless of whether he continues to own the Clippers, he'll still have piles of money to console himself with. But I'm dismayed by the frequency with which public figures are getting attacked for holding unpopular political or religious beliefs.

Once again you say exactly what I'm thinking better than I could have. Reps.

 

[irishog77]

Agreed. And to go along with this, from the SI article I posted last night, owners should be very wary about setting this precedent:



Read More: Donald Sterling, NBA set for epic legal fight over Clippers - NBA - Michael McCann - SI.com

This is why people have said it's a slippery slope. The Spurs, I believe, are easily regarded as the best run organization in basketball, perhaps all of pro sports in America. Hell, people in non-sports businesses praise the organization. The majority owner, Peter Holt, is an alcoholic though. If brought to light, I'm sure there are instances disturbing/immoral/illegal activities in his closet. And this is from who is considered the best owner in their league (I wonder about Jordan, Prokorhov, and others). He is also humbled by his wealth and his success, as well as being regretful and sorry about his past. There are not many at all that have a bad thing to say about the man Peter Holt is today.

So if Sterling's actions that were not illegal nor necessarily against the by-laws of the NBA are deemed to be worthy of removal from the league, I wonder how many other owners' actions could, and now should , be deemed unworthy of owning a team. The league is opening up a can of worms of moral testing and equivalency.


Edit: Yep-- I'm slow in posting.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm surprised we have so many lawyers on here that know and understand laws of corporation, the NBA's rules & bylaws, federal anti-trust laws and have this all figured out already. lol

I didn't read any of the articles or watch any videos, but here's my nickles worth. Sterling is of a dyeing breed. We still have bigotry everywhere, from all colors but the number of those like Sterling who were raised in that culture are quickly coming to an end as they are up in age and won't be around much longer. There will always be some idiots who are bigots but I've seen a change in general attitudes and I think it will continue to get better as our kids and grand-kids are raised to think more progressively.

 

[wizards8507]

Question for everyone regarding this being a "slippery slope" as Cuban put it. Let's assume that Sterling is unanimously voted out and has to sell the team. What would be your punishments then for this:

1) A white basketball player pulling the Riley Cooper and using the n-word on camera.
2) A player pulling the Jason Kidd and pleading guilty to domestic abuse.
3) A religious owner is on the record as saying that he does not support gay marriage. Gays have begun to speak out against him demanding that he sell his team due to discrimination.

Would these players and owner also be banned from the league for life?

What about Jay-Z? He used to own part of a team and now he's a player's agent. In "Girls, Girls, Girls" he asks if an Indian girl is the "red dot or feather" kind of "Indian," and that's just one line in one song. He's got all kinds of offensive / racist lyrics that he published for public consumption versus offensive comments made in the privacy of his own home.

EDIT: I'm NOT saying "ban everyone," I'm saying "ban no one." I'm also NOT saying "the NBA cannot legally ban anyone," I'm saying "the NBA should not ban anyone."

 

[irishfan]

What about Jay-Z? He used to own part of a team and now he's a player's agent. In "Girls, Girls, Girls" he asks if an Indian girl is the "red dot or feather" kind of "Indian," and that's just one line in one song. He's got all kinds of offensive / racist lyrics that he published for public consumption versus offensive comments made in the privacy of his own home.

He had to sell his minority stake to be an agent, but I agree. He also was seen wearing a Five-Percent Nation medallion at a game which is about as racist as it gets, but somehow that stuff tends to go fairly unnoticed.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Right -- the former owner of the Utah Jazz, whose wife now owns the team, would have probably been the next logical target, were he still alive:

In October 2000, Miller demanded the right to breach his contract with the UPN television network if it increased its "urban/ethnic programming" to more than two hours per week, due to lack of minorities within the Salt Lake Metropolitan are.

On January 6, 2006, the film Brokeback Mountain was pulled from Miller's Megaplex 17 theater at the last minute after Miller learned from a radio reporter that the film featured a gay romance. Other R-rated films, such as the comedy Grandma's Boy and the violent horror film Hostel were still allowed to be shown.

 

[wizards8507]

He had to sell his minority stake to be an agent, but I agree. He also was seen wearing a Five-Percent Nation medallion at a game which is about as racist as it gets, but somehow that stuff tends to go fairly unnoticed.

Yep, see my edits.

I'm not familiar with Five-Percent Nation. Is it safe to Google at work?

 

[irishfan]

Yep, see my edits.

I'm not familiar with Five-Percent Nation. Is it safe to Google at work?

I actually had never heard about it until I saw a link to the story the other day, but it's essentially a black supremacist group. Not sure how strict your work is haha

 

[Wild Bill]

Question for everyone regarding this being a "slippery slope" as Cuban put it. Let's assume that Sterling is unanimously voted out and has to sell the team. What would be your punishments then for this:

1) A white basketball player pulling the Riley Cooper and using the n-word on camera.
2) A player pulling the Jason Kidd and pleading guilty to domestic abuse.
3) A religious owner is on the record as saying that he does not support gay marriage. Gays have begun to speak out against him demanding that he sell his team due to discrimination.

Would these players and owner also be banned from the league for life?

The third scenario, if the facts were changed a bit, is the best example of how this is a slippery slope. Let's say an owner was recorded and said the following: "Susie Effstick, can you please avoid bringing Tom Cruise or any other gay guy in LA to my basketball games? I think Cruise is a nice enough fella but I'm catching a lot of heat from my traditionalist friends."

Three years ago, those statements would have been criticized, condemned and he would have paid a fine. No chance he would have lost his franchise. Within a short period of time, we've seen incredible change with respect to gay rights and what is and is not tolerated. I think those comments, if made today, would put your franchise at serious risk.

I think the slope isn't as slippery with respect to beating woman, womanizing, excessive drinking/drug use for at least another decade. I could be wrong.

 

[irishfan]

The third scenario, if the facts were changed a bit, is the best example of how this is a slippery slope. Let's say an owner was recorded and said the following: "Susie Effstick, can you please avoid bringing Tom Cruise or any other gay guy in LA to my basketball games? I think Cruise is a nice enough fella but I'm catching a lot of heat from my traditionalist friends."

Three years ago, those statements would have been criticized, condemned and he would have paid a fine. No chance he would have lost his franchise. Within a short period of time, we've seen incredible change with respect to gay rights and what is and is not tolerated. I think those comments, if made today, would put your franchise at serious risk.

I think the slope isn't as slippery with respect to beating woman, womanizing, excessive drinking/drug use for at least another decade. I could be wrong.

I think you're right, but I just think some people will wonder why an owner loses his team for saying something racist (bad--not against the law) and someone like Jason Kidd can beat his wife and get no penalty. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[gkIrish]

The third scenario, if the facts were changed a bit, is the best example of how this is a slippery slope. Let's say an owner was recorded and said the following: "Susie Effstick, can you please avoid bringing Tom Cruise or any other gay guy in LA to my basketball games? I think Cruise is a nice enough fella but I'm catching a lot of heat from my traditionalist friends."

Three years ago, those statements would have been criticized, condemned and he would have paid a fine. No chance he would have lost his franchise. Within a short period of time, we've seen incredible change with respect to gay rights and what is and is not tolerated. I think those comments, if made today, would put your franchise at serious risk.

I think the slope isn't as slippery with respect to beating woman, womanizing, excessive drinking/drug use for at least another decade. I could be wrong.

The difference is that there a bunch of black players but very few gay players. And many of the players are "against" homosexuality or gay marriage per their religious beliefs. So no one is going to threaten to stop playing over remarks about homosexuals.

 

[wizards8507]

The difference is that there a bunch of black players but very few gay players. And many of the players are "against" homosexuality or gay marriage per their religious beliefs. So no one is going to threaten to stop playing over remarks about homosexuals.

That's exactly the point. This whole thing is arbitrary. Someone out there is picking and choosing what is ban-worthy and what they're just going to look away from.

 

[kmoose]

The difference is that there a bunch of black players but very few gay players. And many of the players are "against" homosexuality or gay marriage per their religious beliefs. So no one is going to threaten to stop playing over remarks about homosexuals.

No one is making the players play. They can walk away at any time, for any reason.

 

[gkIrish]

No one is making the players play. They can walk away at any time, for any reason.

Yes---which is why partly why the NBA banned Sterling. Because they didn't want to deal with the $$$ implications of the players boycotting games and the bad publicity.

 

[kmoose]

Yes---which is why partly why the NBA banned Sterling. Because they didn't want to deal with the $$$ implications of the players boycotting games and the bad publicity.

You boycott? We use the "Reagan Option", and fire the lot of you. There are plenty of others out there, waiting to take your jobs......... and for less money.

 

[wizards8507]

You boycott? We use the "Reagan Option", and fire the lot of you. There are plenty of others out there, waiting to take your jobs......... and for less money.

That's the logic I apply to college athletes getting paid because people tend to be loyal fans of teams/schools and the players come and go anyways. The NBA is a much more star-driven league so I'm not sure if it would work out that way.

 

[kmoose]

That's the logic I apply to college athletes getting paid because people tend to be loyal fans of teams/schools and the players come and go anyways. The NBA is a much more star-driven league so I'm not sure if it would work out that way.

I think it would......... how much of a drop off in talent would there really be? I mean, listen to all of the talk about the difference between making a roster, and not making one, being minute, so every bit of preparation matters. As long as the drop off is not huge, and the league is competitive, people would designate new stars. Remember "He Hate Me"?

 

[JughedJones]

You boycott? We use the "Reagan Option", and fire the lot of you. There are plenty of others out there, waiting to take your jobs......... and for less money.

Good luck with that. The 'power of the market' has spoken if you haven't noticed. (and the market, while many people who believe in the 'Reagan Option" don't like to consider it, includes employees as well.)

 

[Son of Kenmare]

While I completely DO NOT agree with the statements of Mr. Sterling, I am deeply troubled that he is being crucified based on his comments in a private conversation. This was not a public scenario and as such, I really shudder to think of the ramifications of this. Who among us haven't said something in private or in jest that we would never say in public. (I know that this is not the case here). Not only do celebrities have to deal with pictures/video being taken while they are in private situations (case in point Erin Andrews) but also private conversations being recorded and made public. The court of public opinion has become a witch hunt and I for one am concerned about where this current path is leading our society. Personally, I feel that the person releasing this audio tape is a reprehensible individual who instead of being treated as a hero, should be shunned. Once again, I understand that Donald Sterling is a person who shouldn't be getting any sympathy here but the bigger picture is ugly.

 

[DillonHall]

You boycott? We use the "Reagan Option", and fire the lot of you. There are plenty of others out there, waiting to take your jobs......... and for less money.

I'm sure that if there had been a boycott, then every player in the league would have participated.

 

[kmoose]

I'm sure that if there had been a boycott, then every player in the league would have participated.

In case you haven't been paying attention... since racism is so rampant in the NBA, I am sure that the white players would have chosen not to participate.

 

[ND NYC]

It's 75% but has been reported it seems will be unanimous. I agree with you. I only see unanimous if it's not a silent vote. Cuban came out prior to the yesterday's press conference saying he doesn't support Sterling, but you also have to think what future doors will be opened forcing him to sell.

i believe cuban was for him before he was against him.

in VERY beginning he said semthing like (paraphrasing here) 'this is america we are allowed to be idiots and say stupid things and do stupid things...." he backpedaled VERY quickly and went out of his way to condone sterling in subsequent tweets/statements when he got some backlash for what he said/teweeted

 

[Monk McGinn]

While I completely DO NOT agree with the statements of Mr. Sterling, I am deeply troubled that he is being crucified based on his comments in a private conversation. This was not a public scenario and as such, I really shudder to think of the ramifications of this. Who among us haven't said something in private or in jest that we would never say in public. (I know that this is not the case here). Not only do celebrities have to deal with pictures/video being taken while they are in private situations (case in point Erin Andrews) but also private conversations being recorded and made public. The court of public opinion has become a witch hunt and I for one am concerned about where this current path is leading our society. Personally, I feel that the person releasing this audio tape is a reprehensible individual who instead of being treated as a hero, should be shunned. Once again, I understand that Donald Sterling is a person who shouldn't be getting any sympathy here but the bigger picture is ugly.

Careful,some other thread lurker might put a silly thumbs down
gif because of what you think. There are some Thought Police deputies
around who might have an issue if you feel different about this situation. LOL

 

[magogian]

I actually had never heard about it until I saw a link to the story the other day, but it's essentially a black supremacist group. Not sure how strict your work is haha

Black people can't be racist.

I kid you not. It is a very common argument in the liberal circles I run in.

 

[NDWorld247]

So...Sterling's 32-year old son died last night / today of an apparent drug overdose? Tough week for Mr. Sterling.

EDIT: Nevermind. Apparently the story is a year old. His son died in January 2013.

 

[JughedJones]

While I completely DO NOT agree with the statements of Mr. Sterling, I am deeply troubled that he is being crucified based on his comments in a private conversation. This was not a public scenario and as such, I really shudder to think of the ramifications of this. Who among us haven't said something in private or in jest that we would never say in public. (I know that this is not the case here). Not only do celebrities have to deal with pictures/video being taken while they are in private situations (case in point Erin Andrews) but also private conversations being recorded and made public. The court of public opinion has become a witch hunt and I for one am concerned about where this current path is leading our society. Personally, I feel that the person releasing this audio tape is a reprehensible individual who instead of being treated as a hero, should be shunned. Once again, I understand that Donald Sterling is a person who shouldn't be getting any sympathy here but the bigger picture is ugly.

Nobody's treating the leaker of the audio as a hero, in fact, most people I hear in even the most liberal of media are saying they should and probably will face criminal charges.

However, it doesn't matter now. It was leaked, it was awful, and people heard it. When you consider this douchebag's history, there was no going back. It's really that simple.

This 'slippery slope' argument is kind of bunk. Unless the future victim of this 'witchhunt' has a) a history of racist behavior, and b) power over the folks he is racist about, it's not the same thing.

This is open and shut. Players, fans, and sponsors would have bailed, and rightfully so. The leaker, if caught, will be punished. Done.

 

[magogian]

This 'slippery slope' argument is kind of bunk. Unless the future victim of this 'witchhunt' has a) a history of racist behavior, and b) power over the folks he is racist about, it's not the same thing.

Huh? It sounds like you are saying the slippery slope argument is applicable.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Not a fan of the NBA anyway,this story is ridiculous.
Nice to see Freedom Of Speech alive and well in America.
Whatever,spoiled rich pricks fighting over other spoiled rich pricks.

magogian apparently thinks that this IS a freedom of speech issue and/or that this issue is about spoiled pricks.

Care to elaborate magogian