The point was the claim that these issues are only related to rich white men. Such a belief is both false and ignorant.Not really.That is easily handled by not completing the "where I work" line on your FB profile. When others see you on FB one of the first pieces of info they get about you is where you are employed. Saying something on Facebook is the same as standing in your uniform and saying it to a crowd of folks.
If you wouldn't say it in your uniform in a crowd, then don't say it on Facebook.
It's not false, though unprecise. I should have said: "The discussion won't even occur, there's a tiny tiny chance that some random dude will write some random article on a halfway reputable website at best".
And you know what? The free speech argument there was limited to a single sentence in the top, as well as a bunch of commentors saying "that's b#&&+@*#".
So, yes, there might be the odd case where some random person from "the peace and freedom party" say something like that, but it's treated completely different.
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things? Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like. Sorry i don't people should be attacked for talkingHe had every right to say what he said. Now he is having to deal with the consequences.
The same way anyone who expresses an opinion has to, be it '4th Edition ruined D&D' or 'liberalism is a mental disorder'.
Only one of those things is true!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things? Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like. Sorry i don't people should be attacked for talkingIf this is so damaging to the reputation of the NBA when the rest is fine i think they have much bigger problems than one mouthy owner's personal conversationsI just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlashWhy don't you make a thread about that? Discuss it there.
Or are you claiming that because someone else did something wrong, that we should all ignore this thing?
I don't think anyone has ever said that the rest is fine.
Can I get a poll of the audience, though? Raise your hand if you're at all surprised that Andrew R is trying to deflect criticism away from an old conservative white guy!
Lets say you work in a nice office. Would you walk up to your boss, start screaming and yelling claiming you performed sexual acts with his mother?
If your boss fired you, would that be impinging on your "free speech"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets say you work in a nice office. Would you walk up to your boss, start screaming and yelling claiming you performed sexual acts with his mother?If your boss fired you, would that be impinging on your "free speech"?
It is an unfortunate indication of the type of society we live in that I believe there are people who would actually answer "yes" to that.
"Free speech" tends to be thrown around mostly by people who seem to want both the right to be a jerk *and* to get away with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird, because I totally want to be a jerk and get away with it.
It is one of my fondest dreams!
I don't entertain that idea that I have the right to it though.
Wait, does this mean that if you steal money from someone, you're denying them free speech?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, does this mean that if you steal money from someone, you're denying them free speech?
But, my stealing their money is EXPRESSING my free speech.
It's part of a traveling performance art exhibit called "Give me everything in your wallet and the iPhone too, or grandma here gets it between the eyes."
I'm a jerk all the time, and I get away with it. You can too meatrace!
Oh I do too, don't get me wrong, I'm just not deluded enough to think it's my god-given RIGHT to be a jerk without repercussions.
Lets say you work in a nice office. Would you walk up to your boss, start screaming and yelling claiming you performed sexual acts with his mother?If your boss fired you, would that be impinging on your "free speech"?
It is an unfortunate indication of the type of society we live in that I believe there are people who would actually answer "yes" to that.
"Free speech" tends to be thrown around mostly by people who seem to want both the right to be a jerk *and* to get away with it.
No, BUT, depending on the nation you are in, if you said something in private, and one of your employees taped it and then revealed it to the company...it could be considered a crime...and firing you (once again, depending on the nation) based upon that could actually be illegal unless it specified that anything you did in your private life was also eligible for firing (most contracts don't have that clause and in fact only include things done at work).
Labor Laws vary from nation to nation (and even state to state, some states have right to work laws, others do not)...you gotta love the paperwork...
(actually, I'm being facetious in regards to paperwork, I pretty much hate all the paperwork).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society.Oh, is this the moment where it starts? So I should just cross out the fifty moments in the past where conservatives claimed we were living in Orwell's 1984, then? But this time it's for real, right? I just want to make sure.
You are not suggesting that only conservatives were disturbed by the NSA's behavior, are you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do find the idea that people are going to turn against the NBA if this guy wasn't punished as laughable. Here is a few reasons:
The NBA has a virtual monopoly on professional basketball in the U.S., sanctioned by the U.S. Congress. There is no other "game" in town for professional basketball players.
Heat fans aren't going to stop buying LeBron jerseys because of some racist owner on the entire other side of the country.
Nobody cares about the Clippers. Seriously, when was the last time before this that anyone mentioned the Clippers at all? I guess this whole thing might be good for the franchise, they always say there is no such thing as bad press.
Basketball is too entrenched in African-American subculture to just toss it aside. If there was another professional basketball association, sure they'd turn to that, but trying to tear down the only professional basketball association is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
What are fans going to watch instead, hockey? Yeah right.
Not sure about that third one.
There have been a lot of black people who have had problems with the NBA as an organization- very quiet, usually, but after what happened with the Fab Five and their lives and careers after college ball alone, there have been a few subversives who have wanted basketball apart from the NBA and NCAA. I may be dating myself a bit, but there were a lot of people pushing street ball as the new thing in the 90's, especially as the cage in Manhattan was getting popular with talent scouts from those organizations. There's also the occasional waxing-waning relationship the african american community has with remembering the Negro Leagues in baseball- and outside of that, the complex relationship the American League had with the National League before they combined. I could see a young entrepraneur with a LOTof money who would be interested in starting a new basketball league in light of this. How long it would last in the face of the older and more successful one is a matter of debate.
I have also been thinking about this a lot and talking about it with my wife, who is black and american(where as i am black and only mostly american). This owner is an old man, and there was a time in american society where his views were seen as the norm. To quote a semi-famous movie(sorta kinda), the owner got older while the players remained the same age. Time moved on. At one point in time, there were players who may not have relished his views, but had no problem working with him professionally so long as he left them alone. That generation of players has long retired, and we have a new generation that will not accept such statements being made, regardless of what role this person plays in their lives.
Lets say you work in a nice office. Would you walk up to your boss, start screaming and yelling claiming you performed sexual acts with his mother?If your boss fired you, would that be impinging on your "free speech"?
It is an unfortunate indication of the type of society we live in that I believe there are people who would actually answer "yes" to that.
"Free speech" tends to be thrown around mostly by people who seem to want both the right to be a jerk *and* to get away with it.
No, BUT, depending on the nation you are in, if you said something in private, and one of your employees taped it and then revealed it to the company...it could be considered a crime...and firing you (once again, depending on the nation) based upon that could actually be illegal unless it specified that anything you did in your private life was also eligible for firing (most contracts don't have that clause and in fact only include things done at work).
Labor Laws vary from nation to nation (and even state to state, some states have right to work laws, others do not)...you gotta love the paperwork...
(actually, I'm being facetious in regards to paperwork, I pretty much hate all the paperwork).
In the US, anything you do in your private life is eligible for firing, with the exception of a few protected things.
In the US, anything you do in your private life is eligible for firing, with the exception of a few protected things.
Lets say you work in a nice office. Would you walk up to your boss, start screaming and yelling claiming you performed sexual acts with his mother?If your boss fired you, would that be impinging on your "free speech"?
It is an unfortunate indication of the type of society we live in that I believe there are people who would actually answer "yes" to that.
"Free speech" tends to be thrown around mostly by people who seem to want both the right to be a jerk *and* to get away with it.
No, BUT, depending on the nation you are in, if you said something in private, and one of your employees taped it and then revealed it to the company...it could be considered a crime...and firing you (once again, depending on the nation) based upon that could actually be illegal unless it specified that anything you did in your private life was also eligible for firing (most contracts don't have that clause and in fact only include things done at work).
Labor Laws vary from nation to nation (and even state to state, some states have right to work laws, others do not)...you gotta love the paperwork...
(actually, I'm being facetious in regards to paperwork, I pretty much hate all the paperwork).
Also, this.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Various posters have insinuateded that only racists and/or conservatives support Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech.
I support his freedom of speech. I support his right not to be arrested for his views.
I also support the right of the rest of society to treat him like crap for having those views, for anyone with the ability to make his life more difficult in any legal way to do so, for anyone who wishes to boycott any goods and services associated with him to do so, for any company or individual involved with those goods and services to refuse to deal with him due to the bad rep it'll bring them, and for anyone linked to him in any way to sever those links through any legal means available to them if they wish to do so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Various posters have insinuateded that only racists and/or conservatives support Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech. I would beg to point out that the American Civil Liberties Union has, on a number of ocassions, actively supported the right of neo-nazi groups to publicly protest and air their opinions in public venues. If freedom of speech is allowed to be eroded then ,in other circumstances, you might be the one to be punished for your opinions. This is not to say that his views should be quietly accepted and that he should not be criticized. What would be most interesting in this regard would be for a conversation to take place as to how he came to accept his beliefs ( this is probably wishful thinking ) so that he might possibly change his attitude.
I'm a progressive (or liberal, if you prefer), and I support Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech. Which, as been pointed out ad nauseam, has not been violated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would be most interesting in this regard would be for a conversation to take place as to how he came to accept his beliefs ( this is probably wishful thinking ) so that he might possibly change his attitude.
I'm not remotely interested in why he became a bigot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Various posters have insinuateded that only racists and/or conservatives support Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech.
I think once again your understanding is lacking.
Various posters have insinuated that only racists and/or conservatives support Mr. Sterling's freedom from consequences.
Lots of people support his freedom of speech, but the liberals, in this thread, have an accurate understanding of what that phrase means.
I would beg to point out that the American Civil Liberties Union has, on a number of ocassions, actively supported the right of neo-nazi groups to publicly protest and air their opinions in public venues.
They have. I can't think of a case where the ACLU has suggested that a private entity can't enforce the terms of a freely signed contract, though.
That's because the ACLU knows constitutional law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, BUT, depending on the nation you are in, if you said something in private, and one of your employees taped it and then revealed it to the company...it could be considered a crime...and firing you (once again, depending on the nation) based upon that could actually be illegal unless it specified that anything you did in your private life was also eligible for firing (most contracts don't have that clause and in fact only include things done at work).
As has been explained, that's not typically the case in the United States, and it's precisely the conservatives that have been fighting to keep it this way by watering down and/or eliminating the protections for wrongful dismissal.
The argument is actually fairly simple -- if you-as-an-employee are actually damaging my company by your private activities, the law should not require me to continue to employ you and thereby continue to damage the company.
It's interesting that the same conservatives that are so insistent that a teacher who marries his gay partner should be fired despite the total absence of any notable damage to the company are now insisting that Sterling must be retained despite the demonstrable damage to the brand (when the advertisers pull out).
But that's largely because conservatives do not actually care about rights, only about protecting what they consider to be theirs. Even when they're wrong about that (as in the "property right" of a franchise).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Various posters have insinuateded that only racists and/or conservatives support Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech. I would beg to point out that the American Civil Liberties Union has, on a number of ocassions, actively supported the right of neo-nazi groups to publicly protest and air their opinions in public venues. If freedom of speech is allowed to be eroded then ,in other circumstances, you might be the one to be punished for your opinions. This is not to say that his views should be quietly accepted and that he should not be criticized. What would be most interesting in this regard would be for a conversation to take place as to how he came to accept his beliefs ( this is probably wishful thinking ) so that he might possibly change his attitude.
Dude, you keep ignoring that his freedom of speech has not been violated.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
some men
you just can't reach
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are not suggesting that only conservatives were disturbed by the NSA's behavior, are you?With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society.Oh, is this the moment where it starts? So I should just cross out the fifty moments in the past where conservatives claimed we were living in Orwell's 1984, then? But this time it's for real, right? I just want to make sure.
No, but Gendo is conservative, and calling something "the start of 1984" happens roughly once per Tuesday for him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
some men
you just can't reach
So you get what we had here last week? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you get what we had here last week? :)some men
you just can't reach
I don't like it. Any more than you do....
(I was actually thinking this yesterday)
I would say that mostly racists and conservatives have attempted to defend Mr. Sterling on Freedom of Speech grounds. The racists because they agree with him, but don't want to admit it. The conservatives because it's an excuse to bash liberal political correctness. There is of course some overlap.
I raise again the xkcd quote "The most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express"
I think he's a moron and he's gonna get what's coming to him. I just really wonder if it's fair to flog one moron when there's just so many others who get bupkis.
I think he's a moron and he's gonna get what's coming to him. I just really wonder if it's fair to flog one moron when there's just so many others who get bupkis.I would say that mostly racists and conservatives have attempted to defend Mr. Sterling on Freedom of Speech grounds. The racists because they agree with him, but don't want to admit it. The conservatives because it's an excuse to bash liberal political correctness. There is of course some overlap.
I raise again the xkcd quote "The most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express"
The idea being that if you can't flog every moron, you can't flog any of them? No sensible person would accept that. By that argument, since there are unsolved murders on the books, no murderer can be tried.
I think he's a moron and he's gonna get what's coming to him. I just really wonder if it's fair to flog one moron when there's just so many others who get bupkis.I would say that mostly racists and conservatives have attempted to defend Mr. Sterling on Freedom of Speech grounds. The racists because they agree with him, but don't want to admit it. The conservatives because it's an excuse to bash liberal political correctness. There is of course some overlap.
I raise again the xkcd quote "The most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express"
The idea being that if you can't flog every moron, you can't flog any of them? No sensible person would accept that. By that argument, since there are unsolved murders on the books, no murderer can be tried.
Where your line of reasoning doesn't hold up is "unsolved" vs. "solved."
"Can't" vs. "don't." That kinda doesn't apply either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he's a moron and he's gonna get what's coming to him. I just really wonder if it's fair to flog one moron when there's just so many others who get bupkis.I would say that mostly racists and conservatives have attempted to defend Mr. Sterling on Freedom of Speech grounds. The racists because they agree with him, but don't want to admit it. The conservatives because it's an excuse to bash liberal political correctness. There is of course some overlap.
I raise again the xkcd quote "The most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express"
The idea being that if you can't flog every moron, you can't flog any of them? No sensible person would accept that. By that argument, since there are unsolved murders on the books, no murderer can be tried.
lets avoid absolutes. I hear only the sith deal in those....
There have been a lot of black people who have had problems with the NBA as an organization- very quiet, usually, but after what happened with the Fab Five and their lives and careers after college ball alone
Very tangential, but Jalen Rose is now my favorite basketball analyst. I'm getting a huge kick out of watching all of his Grantland stuff. He's much more enjoyable for me than anyone on any of the big sports channels.
Various posters have insinuateded that only racists and/or conservatives support Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech. I would beg to point out that the American Civil Liberties Union has, on a number of ocassions, actively supported the right of neo-nazi groups to publicly protest and air their opinions in public venues. If freedom of speech is allowed to be eroded then ,in other circumstances, you might be the one to be punished for your opinions. This is not to say that his views should be quietly accepted and that he should not be criticized. What would be most interesting in this regard would be for a conversation to take place as to how he came to accept his beliefs ( this is probably wishful thinking ) so that he might possibly change his attitude.
Go ahead and link the post where someone said he isn't allowed to say the things he's said.
I think he's a moron and he's gonna get what's coming to him. I just really wonder if it's fair to flog one moron when there's just so many others who get bupkis.I would say that mostly racists and conservatives have attempted to defend Mr. Sterling on Freedom of Speech grounds. The racists because they agree with him, but don't want to admit it. The conservatives because it's an excuse to bash liberal political correctness. There is of course some overlap.
I raise again the xkcd quote "The most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it isn't literally illegal to express"
The idea being that if you can't flog every moron, you can't flog any of them? No sensible person would accept that. By that argument, since there are unsolved murders on the books, no murderer can be tried.
Where your line of reasoning doesn't hold up is "unsolved" vs. "solved."
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like it. Any more than you do....So you get what we had here last week? :)some men
you just can't reach
{wanders off to dig out Use Your Illusion II CD}
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?
When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Various posters have insinuateded that only racists and/or conservatives support Mr. Sterling's freedom of speech. I would beg to point out that the American Civil Liberties Union has, on a number of ocassions, actively supported the right of neo-nazi groups to publicly protest and air their opinions in public venues. If freedom of speech is allowed to be eroded then ,in other circumstances, you might be the one to be punished for your opinions. This is not to say that his views should be quietly accepted and that he should not be criticized. What would be most interesting in this regard would be for a conversation to take place as to how he came to accept his beliefs ( this is probably wishful thinking ) so that he might possibly change his attitude.Dude, you keep ignoring that his freedom of speech has not been violated.
This is not a Freedom of Speech issue – the government is not oppressing him.
This is about consequences. I would be labeled a conservative on these boards (not by my choice) but this is 100% about consequence of action - conservatives are all about consequence and cause/effect. This is what this looks like.This guy's life is public because he's a public figure. He does have his right to expect privacy, but he didn't protect that (being an idiot) so he suffers. He has every right to bring claim if he was recorded without his knowledge, but that doesn't change what got out there with these tapes – separate issue. He also agreed to the structure and conditions of owning a franchise in the NBA. Too bad for him, deal with it. The hypocracy of how these "morality" clasues are being enforced is a bit weak - but that's what happens when people don't like you.
All that being said:
He also has every right to sue to keep his team and I think he should. The commission should force him to sell the team and he should fight back destroying the franchise while making people upset (sorry, it’s just the Abraxian in me).
Drag the whole thing down with his scorched earth lawyers and expose everyone else's hypocrisies. Spare the NBA and the team? This is not a good cause or movement, none of these people in this for the betterment of society, just their pocketbooks. It's all a business so I don't feel like "he needs to move on for the good of everyone", screw that. This isn't the Nixon resignation, it's just a business – no heroes here.
Anyway
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?
see Ruben Patterson, personal life
Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.
If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.
see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.
I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"1/8/14
The NBA fined J.R. Smith (NY) $50,000 for "recurring instances of
unsportsmanlike conduct." Smith untied Shawn Marion's (Dal) shoe during
Sunday's Dal-NY game and (after being warned by the NBA to stop) tried to
untie Greg Monroe's (Det) shoe during Tuesday's NY-Det game."
This one's funny though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?
When multiple large sponsors pulled out.
What exactly is the reasoning for letting him off the hook?When you say, "letting him off the hook", what do you mean by that?see Ruben Patterson, personal life
Kyle Lowry hits a female official with a basketball; does some anger management classes.
If you look on Wikipedia, now he's a head coach.
see personal life: reckless endangerment of a child gets you a 1 game suspension.
I guess, when you say "hook," I'm perplexed by the inference that there is one? Or, is Sterling a unique and special case because......meh? When did the NBA begin worrying about their image? Last Thursday?
What exactly is your point?
Are you saying that because other people are also bad, Donald Sterling deserves a pass?
How do exactly do your links relate to Donald Sterling?
Are you saying his punishment is excessive? That he's right and black people shouldn't be promoted publicly? What's your point?