| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The analogy is flawed because the nature of the difference invalidates the analogy.
To build a proper analogy you must use parts that don't have an extenuating issue attached (unless that issue exists in the original case as well) because that issue weighs on the "general" case and prevents it from functioning as an analogy.
In this case you say
A person said some racist stuff in his home.
Many people say racist things in their home and nothing happens.
Shouldn't we punish the ones we know about anyway?
A person commits murder in his home.
Many people get away with murder.
Shouldn't we punish the ones we know about anyway?
The logical step in your syllogism doesn't function because we want to punish murders because it is illegal. So the "of course punish him" doesn't follow as part of your analogy because the extenuating issue of legality exists in your example case does not apply to your primary case. The logical leap cannot be made.
Basically for the analogy to work the "why" must be the same in both cases. If the "why" in your example case introduces circumstances which don't apply to your primary case then the analogy will not hold.
^this has nothing to do with how I feel about this case, this is just me discussing argument construction.
BigDTBone: I agree, but that wasn't the analogy was it?
Wasn't it more like:
A person did some racist stuff and was taped and publicized against his will.
Should we ignore the things he did because the evidence was publicized against his will?
A person commited a murder and was taped and publicized against his will.
Should we ignore the things he did because the evidence was publicized against his will?
The analogy wasn't about punishment, but of the validity of evidence depending on source. That's how I read it anyway. Whether the source matters more or less depending on if the thing done was illegal or not is a matter of opinion, and I can see why one would find the analogy too far from the original happening, but I don't think it's inherently flawed in the way your example analogy is.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, new analogy:
Your best friend is recorded by one of their friends saying how much of a jerk you are and how they can't stand you and only hang around you because you're rich and they want some money. The person who recorded it then plays it to you. Do you treat your best friend differently? Or do you ignore the recorded conversdation as it shouldn't have been recorded?
I think that's about the same level of legality, no? No one is saying his racist speech should be illegal or that he should get into any legal trouble for it. But we are saying that if people become aware that you're a racist a%@+*$&, they have the right to treat you like a racist a#&!+%! and distance themselves from you to prevent you damaging their brand. Do you disagree with that premise?
Indeed, it would be wise to avoid analogies involving murder or ones where individuals already had their day in court, were sentenced, and have served that sentence. The guy in question has done none of these things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In most states, if one person in a group being recorded knows that the conversation is being recorded, it's admissible. That's neither here nor there in this case.
What is either here or there (or, what's pertinent, I guess) is that a racist jerk who's getting all sort of blowback, and wouldn't have said all that if he'd known people would hear, it is just a duplicitous racist jerk.
I you asked me, I guess I'd rather have to deal with duplicitous racist jerks that honest ones. At least I don't have to listen to them spout off all the time. But they're still racists jerk, which, legal or not, I see as a problem that should be solved.
Ok, new analogy:
Your best friend is recorded by one of their friends saying how much of a jerk you are and how they can't stand you and only hang around you because you're rich and they want some money. The person who recorded it then plays it to you. Do you treat your best friend differently? Or do you ignore the recorded conversation as it shouldn't have been recorded?
I would probably refuse to listen to the recording and make it clear I don't want anything to do with the person who recorded it. I'd rather hang out with someone that thought I was a jerk than someone who would try to stir up crap for no reason.
I would probably refuse to listen to the recording and make it clear I don't want anything to do with the person who recorded it. I'd rather hang out with someone that thought I was a jerk than someone who would try to stir up crap for no reason.Ok, new analogy:
Your best friend is recorded by one of their friends saying how much of a jerk you are and how they can't stand you and only hang around you because you're rich and they want some money. The person who recorded it then plays it to you. Do you treat your best friend differently? Or do you ignore the recorded conversation as it shouldn't have been recorded?
Interesting Pres.
Would that Spanky were still here, I wonder what his take on this would be.
BigDTBone: I agree, but that wasn't the analogy was it?
Wasn't it more like:
A person did some racist stuff and was taped and publicized against his will.
Should we ignore the things he did because the evidence was publicized against his will?A person commited a murder and was taped and publicized against his will.
Should we ignore the things he did because the evidence was publicized against his will?The analogy wasn't about punishment, but of the validity of evidence depending on source. That's how I read it anyway. Whether the source matters more or less depending on if the thing done was illegal or not is a matter of opinion, and I can see why one would find the analogy too far from the original happening, but I don't think it's inherently flawed in the way your example analogy is.
The difference is minor and is actually dishonest anyway. By adding the qualifier, "because the evidence was publicized against his will" you (general) ask the listener to excuse murder on a technicality. The listener is almost certainly not going to be willing to say, "set a killer free" for the reasons discussed in the last post even if you only ask about a specific qualified aspect. It is like asking someone to ignore the elephant in the room.
The best way to leave a house is through the window.
Vs. the best way to exit a burning house with a blocked door is through the window.
The logic changes in the second example and becomes reasonable because of the extra information. The example with murder has the (unspoken) extra information of being illegal and being murder...
A person did some racist stuff and was taped and publicized against his will.
The story is still murky enough only the latter (the tapes were released against his will) is certain. Supposedly, she's not his girlfriend. She's his assistant. One of the parts of her job, allegedly, is to record things so he doesn't forget them. If that's the case, then he wasn't taped against his will, and only the latter portion is true.
If you look at the link I posted above, she comes out and says in an interview that he isn't racist, despite the things he said on the tapes. Her excuses are lame and I can't tell if she's saying this as part of damage control for Sterling, or if she's just thick, but there it is.
I think the key here isn't freedom of speech, but freedom of privacy.
There are those here that feel people should NOT have privacy, and it is not an inherent right.
Others feel you have a right to privacy and the invasion of privacy is ethically and morally wrong.
The other aspect, and this is the one that I find shocking, is the overall approval of blackmail and extortion.
Who would have thought many years ago when I was younger blackmail and extortion would have such approval in the future.
Also amazing in that in the 1960s and 70s privacy was seen as a very important thing. The Right of privacy was held in high regard, and it was feared that this would be lost in the future.
No one actually believed such a thing would happen, and most revered the right to privacy...well all those except for the few that WANTED 1984 to become a reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably refuse to listen to the recording and make it clear I don't want anything to do with the person who recorded it. I'd rather hang out with someone that thought I was a jerk than someone who would try to stir up crap for no reason.Ok, new analogy:
Your best friend is recorded by one of their friends saying how much of a jerk you are and how they can't stand you and only hang around you because you're rich and they want some money. The person who recorded it then plays it to you. Do you treat your best friend differently? Or do you ignore the recorded conversation as it shouldn't have been recorded?
You didn't really answer the question, though. Would knowing that your best friend hates your guts affect your feelings towards him?
But fine, if that one doesn't work for you, here goes:
One of your girlfriend's/fiancee's/wife's friends was told by her, in confidence, that she is cheating on you. The friend recorded this admission, and plays it for you.
Do you act as though nothing has happened? After all, the recording wasn't made with your significant other's consent.
Or do you react in some way to the newfound knowledge that your significant other is cheating on you?
In other words, when it hits close to home, do you really care how the knowledge was thrust upon you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are those here that feel people should NOT have privacy, and it is not an inherent right.Others feel you have a right to privacy and the invasion of privacy is ethically and morally wrong.
That is a different discussion alltogether. Whether what his lover did was right or not has no bearing on whether what he did (or what the response he got) was okay or not.
That is a different discussion alltogether. Whether what his lover did was right or not has no bearing on whether what he did (or what the response he got) was okay or not.
There are those here that feel people should NOT have privacy, and it is not an inherent right.Others feel you have a right to privacy and the invasion of privacy is ethically and morally wrong.
Yeah, this.
I think the key here isn't freedom of speech, but freedom of privacy.
There are those here that feel people should NOT have privacy, and it is not an inherent right.
Others feel you have a right to privacy and the invasion of privacy is ethically and morally wrong.
The other aspect, and this is the one that I find shocking, is the overall approval of blackmail and extortion.
Who would have thought many years ago when I was younger blackmail and extortion would have such approval in the future.
Also amazing in that in the 1960s and 70s privacy was seen as a very important thing. The Right of privacy was held in high regard, and it was feared that this would be lost in the future.
No one actually believed such a thing would happen, and most revered the right to privacy...well all those except for the few that WANTED 1984 to become a reality.
The conspiracy theories revolving around NBA team ownership have been unconvincing.
As far as his privacy goes, he requested the recordings to be made. While I agree, he should have a certain expectation of privacy, even with those recordings, this kind of thing almost always gets out. He chose to make recordings of himself saying racist things. The fact that someone violated his privacy does not change the fact that he said those things.
This isn't a case about the government spying on you. This is about employing a woman who you like to have sex with, paying her to record your conversations and then losing control of a copy of those recordings because she gets angry at you later.
Even though she may violated his privacy, it doesn't change any of the facts about him. It doesn't excuse his actions. It doesn't free him from consequence. Other people are entitled to their own free speech and they can use it to shame him and cause him problems.
Indeed, it would be wise to avoid analogies involving murder or ones where individuals already had their day in court, were sentenced, and have served that sentence. The guy in question has done none of these things.
All of my analogies involve murder.
All of my analogies involve murder.
Is it bad that I first read an "r" in that sentence that shouldn't be there?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the key here isn't freedom of speech, but freedom of privacy.
There are those here that feel people should NOT have privacy, and it is not an inherent right.
Others feel you have a right to privacy and the invasion of privacy is ethically and morally wrong.
The other aspect, and this is the one that I find shocking, is the overall approval of blackmail and extortion.
Who would have thought many years ago when I was younger blackmail and extortion would have such approval in the future.
Also amazing in that in the 1960s and 70s privacy was seen as a very important thing. The Right of privacy was held in high regard, and it was feared that this would be lost in the future.
No one actually believed such a thing would happen, and most revered the right to privacy...well all those except for the few that WANTED 1984 to become a reality.
Please link to any post in this thread which states an approval of extortion and/or blackmail.
I also have not seen anyone who has made the argument that one should not have an expectation of privacy. Again, a link to any such claim in this thread would be in order.
What has been argued is regardless of the ethical/moral/legal considerations of how his statements came to light, the fact is they now are and the method of delivery of those statements is moot to the discussion at hand. This is not to say that the method was correct or should be approved of, only that it is not relevant to a discussion as to reactions to his statements.
Just to be clear, he didn't "do" anything with respect to these comments.
Also, if person A asks person B to record them at time M and location X, that doesn't give person B the right to record person A at time N and/or location Y.
You didn't really answer the question, though. Would knowing that your best friend hates your guts affect your feelings towards him?I would probably refuse to listen to the recording and make it clear I don't want anything to do with the person who recorded it. I'd rather hang out with someone that thought I was a jerk than someone who would try to stir up crap for no reason.Ok, new analogy:
Your best friend is recorded by one of their friends saying how much of a jerk you are and how they can't stand you and only hang around you because you're rich and they want some money. The person who recorded it then plays it to you. Do you treat your best friend differently? Or do you ignore the recorded conversation as it shouldn't have been recorded?
Your assumption is that I care how he feels about me. Maybe I don't. Maybe I think he is a jerk also and I hang around him because we need a 5th player and he is respectful to me and my family when he comes over to play.
But fine, if that one doesn't work for you, here goes:
One of your girlfriend's/fiancee's/wife's friends was told by her, in confidence, that she is cheating on you. The friend recorded this admission, and plays it for you.
Do you act as though nothing has happened? After all, the recording wasn't made with your significant other's consent.
Or do you react in some way to the newfound knowledge that your significant other is cheating on you?
In other words, when it hits close to home, do you really care how the knowledge was thrust upon you?
You understand you have fundamentally shifted the situation from a case where no harm is actually being caused to a situation where harm is actually being caused. Pregnancy, STDs, what have you are all tied to sexual behavior. A cheating spouse can do serious harm to their spouse.
EDIT: Okay, let's say you are instructor at a college. A former student of yours is bad mouthing you to other students and faculty and you learn about it. The following semester the student is again in your class, how do you treat the student?
EDIT2: I just realize, see I say things like, "How do you treat the person?" and a lot of the folks on the other side say, "How do you feel about the person?" I think right there is a big difference in expectations and world view.
It is unfortunately a common idea that companies should make decisions based on anything other than economic advantage.
Tragedy of the commons. Look into it.
Blackmail and extortion are crimes. If it can be proven that she was committing either or both she should be punished appropriately.
That does not effect the consequences to him of his bad behavior.
Should the fact that you're being blackmailed about something excuse you from any legal (criminal, civil or contractual) penalties for that behavior.
Because the consequences ARE because of the crimes.
Basically, by approving what the commissioner did, it says Blackmail is fine as long as it makes someone look bad and allows the NBA to force a sale.
By allowing the punishment, it opens ALL the owners to be blackmailed. Basically anything they've ever said, if it was recorded, legal or not, can be used to try to force them to pay someone money, or that someone can get the NBA to kick that owner out.
This is the dilemma the owners actually face and what they have to decide in regards to their voting. Not whether they like Sterling or not, but whether or not allowing blackmail to be used as a vehicle of evidence to force punishments on the owners.
Blackmail, extortion, whatever you call it, IS a crime, and that's what was going on. If the NBA allows this, they basically allow the commissioner to be able to use any evidence in any way to kick any of them out.
This is actually the concern that has been expressed by them already...and why it is supposed if it is a private vote...the NBA Commissioner may find his rulings are unsupported by the rest of the owners. Not certain, as if they vote against his ruling it makes them appear as implicit racists as well...(so lose/lose for them whichever way the vote goes), but even if they are considered supportive of Sterling (which they wouldn't be, but the lynch mentality against Sterling wasn't brought up because he was racist, but it seems more and more likely because someone wanted to force a sale and used it as a weapon to force the sale instead), it may be better than giving the opportunities for blackmail and extortion that would arise should they support allowing the NBA commissioner such powers.
Because the consequences ARE because of the crimes.Basically, by approving what the commissioner did, it says Blackmail is fine as long as it makes someone look bad and allows the NBA to force a sale.
<shrug> No, it doesn't.
By allowing the punishment, it opens ALL the owners to be blackmailed.
No, it doesn't. The contract allows ALL the owners to be blackmailed
If the NBA allows this, they basically allow the commissioner to be able to use any evidence in any way to kick any of them out.
Yes. The alternative is to impose some sort of exclusionary rule that says "we don't care what you've done unless the evidence of your behavior has been obtained by an approved process," which would make the NBA look worse (and in some cases make them accessories).
it seems more and more likely because someone wanted to force a sale and used it as a weapon to force the sale instead), it may be better than giving the opportunities for blackmail and...
Ah, yes. When the slippery slope fallacy fails, resort to conspiratorial ravings instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, by approving what the commissioner did, it says Blackmail is fine as long as it makes someone look bad
Yeah, it was the blackmail that made Sterling look bad. Not the flagrantly racist things he said. The blackmail.
Basically, by approving what the commissioner did, it says Blackmail is fine as long as it makes someone look badYeah, it was the blackmail that made Sterling look bad. Not the flagrantly racist things he said. The blackmail.
The sponsers and such were already leaving (and being replaced) since Sterling already was made public with his discrimination several years ago. This is NOT a new thing.
In fact, the treatment of players by him has already been an issue in regards to his racist views.
His racism is NOT something new. Using the tapes to gather indignation against him is.
And it was this specific threat, that built this situation. The Ex was threatening to release them and cause this type of scenario unless he paid her money...aka...paid up.
And that's EXACTLY what she did, with the help of a specific friend she apparently had as well.
So he didn't pay up, and they created the situation they said they would if he didn't pay up.
Weapon to be used?
C'mon man.
Every single one of those owners have lawyers that have gone over those contracts. All of them know what the behavior clause or whatever means.
They all know that at any point they do or say something stupid, and it adversely effects the NBA, they can possibly lose their teams.
As others have pointed out, it's a franchise agreement. They get to keep using the NBA brand, as long as they don;t cause the NBA a problem.
Sterling's SNAFU doesn't "suddenly open up" anything. These contracts have been around for decades.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By allowing the punishment, it opens ALL the owners to be blackmailed. Basically anything they've ever said, if it was recorded, legal or not, can be used to try to force them to pay someone money, or that someone can get the NBA to kick that owner out.
Wrong. Only things they say that violate their contractual agreement.
By allowing the punishment, it opens ALL the owners to be blackmailed. Basically anything they've ever said, if it was recorded, legal or not, can be used to try to force them to pay someone money, or that someone can get the NBA to kick that owner out.Wrong. Only things they say that violate their contractual agreement.
Yes.
Their contractual agreement to own a franchise with the NBA.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darn, if only someone could post an analogy related to Pathfinder.
If you're travelling with someone who says they're a gnome cleric of Sarenrae, and your party members cast true sight and notice they're actually a polymorphed succubus, and they warned you - would you still trust the "cleric" afterwards, since they did not willingly part with the information about their actual form?
Well, he's a rich white dude, of course his "rights" are more important than anyone else's.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
His racism is NOT something new. Using the tapes to gather indignation against him is.
You're acting like the people angry at Sterling were somehow duped into being disgusted with him. Like we missed some critical piece of information that allowed us to be manipulated. No. We don't care how we found out that he's a racist. He's a racist. Cat's out of the bag.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
His racism is NOT something new. Using the tapes to gather indignation against him is.You're acting like the people angry at Sterling were somehow duped into being disgusted with him. Like we missed some critical piece of information that allowed us to be manipulated. No. We don't care how we found out that he's a racist. He's a racist. Cat's out of the bag.
Wait, what, he's a racist? ;)
Yep, see, here's the thing. Until this whole thing came up, I had no idea he was a racist, I had no idea he even existed, he hadn't registered anywhere on my completely-uninterested-in-basketball-not-to-mention-pretty-much-any-sport radar.
All the tapes did was bring this whole story to a high enough level in the news for me to become aware of the fact. As far as I'm aware, they were not doctored to make him appear to say things he didn't actually say.
I'm not disgusted with him because he's "enough of a racist enough to become news-worthy". I'm not disgusted with him from any aspect of how the tapes were used to bring it to light. I'm disgusted with him due to the fact he's a racist, period.
Was his privacy invaded? Absolutely, and I hate invasion of privacy, and I have no issues if he wishes to take anyone to court over it. Doesn't stop me being disgusted with him for being a racist, though, and I don't see any reason to suddenly forget that fact just because of how it came to light ("Poor guy, he didn't mean for his racism to become such public knowledge, so I guess I can forgive and forget and feel sorry about his rights being violated instead." Yeah... right.)
His racism is NOT something new. Using the tapes to gather indignation against him is.You're acting like the people angry at Sterling were somehow duped into being disgusted with him. Like we missed some critical piece of information that allowed us to be manipulated. No. We don't care how we found out that he's a racist. He's a racist. Cat's out of the bag.Wait, what, he's a racist? ;)
Yep, see, here's the thing. Until this whole thing came up, I had no idea he was a racist, I had no idea he even existed, he hadn't registered anywhere on my completely-uninterested-in-basketball-not-to-mention-pretty-much-any-sport radar.
All the tapes did was bring this whole story to a high enough level in the news for me to become aware of the fact. As far as I'm aware, they were not doctored to make him appear to say things he didn't actually say.
I'm not disgusted with him because he's "enough of a racist enough to become news-worthy". I'm not disgusted with him from any aspect of how the tapes were used to bring it to light. I'm disgusted with him due to the fact he's a racist, period.
Was his privacy invaded? Absolutely, and I hate invasion of privacy, and I have no issues if he wishes to take anyone to court over it. Doesn't stop me being disgusted with him for being a racist, though, and I don't see any reason to suddenly forget that fact just because of how it came to light ("Poor guy, he didn't mean for his racism to become such public knowledge, so I guess I can forgive and forget and feel sorry about his rights being violated instead." Yeah... right.)
I think you missed the first post on what the actual controversy is.
People think it's about his racism...but really, it's not. It's about the invasion of privacy and if blackmail and extortion are viable means to use as excuses to take something from someone.
His racism was pretty well known...I mean...you don't get prosecuted for discrimination in court normally and have it kept a secret. You don't have your coaches refuse to do what you ask when you ask them to treat your players as slaves and have it as a no news item.
You don't have minorities bringing lawsuits against you for discrimination, and think that this isn't enough to make public he's racist?
It's been well known for years. 2006 the US FEDERAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT (something just a wee bit more official than the NBA as far as criminal discrimination goes) came down on him and this stuff still is having fallouts. In 2009 he was fined 3 million in conjunction with this.
Even before this he had ongoing lawsuits since 2003 in regards to discrimination...
I mean, if you looked him up prior to this event and release of the tapes on google...discrimination and racism were linked to his name!
I mean...you'd have to have your head buried in the sand not to know this guys history of racism and discrimination...OR (and I think this is more likely) people had no idea who Sterling was until Magic Johnson brought up his infuriation over the tapes...(who incidentally [or not] is friends with the girl who released them for not being paid off) which coalitioned the players of the team and others in the NBA.
Which brings another point. You didn't care about the much higher profile cases of discrimination, the more amounts of people that he was racist to previously, nor the ACTUAL crimes he committed, but when it comes to his private comments which are far less hurtful...you THEN take offense?
I am still rather stuck on where I stand on the issue, but at least I recognize WHICH issue it is.
People are letting their emotional response rather than the right/wrong response gain ground on this.
However, when you look at the situation...this was never a case regarding racism...but the powers of the NBA.
That he was racist and deserves it...is where the quandary comes in...but at the same time...the real problem has nothing and everything to do with Sterling.
It's an economic front shamming his comments as an excuse...but in many ways is seen as a powermove by the Commissioner to obtain more power.
The question is whether or not the OWNERS (the real power behind the NBA) will approve his move with their vote or not. They basically face the same quandary as I...or how I feel...which is a disgust with Sterling...but even with that dislike...whether the means justify the ends.
As I said, if they vote to approve the Commissioner's punishments and force a sale...the ramifications of giving the Commissioner that much power could be bad for them...and could backfire on many of them later.
The possibility to lose a team because you don't pay someone off and they release a private conversation...simply because the Commissioner now has been granted the power to force a sale from this...is a pretty big power struggle/move.
It doesn't even have to be racism...maybe someone quotes bible verse against Homosexuality (or otherwise, look up Mark Cuban for example and see why he might be worried about this type of power granting to the commissioner), or maybe someone talks about trading an older player for younger ones and it's seen as ageism, or maybe someone tells a joke against a religion or nation in a non-serious manner, or maybe someone says something about one of their divorced spouses...or any other sort of thing that just might not be taken as in vogue to be said at that particular time. There's distasteful things I'm certain some of them have said
That's the struggle and moral quandary (or if not moral...economic quandary) they are struggling with, and which I myself do not see a clear way of which is the right or wrong way for it to go.
I think you missed the first post on what the actual controversy is.People think it's about his racism...but really, it's not. It's about the invasion of privacy and if blackmail and extortion are viable means to use as excuses to take something from someone.
No, it's not. It's about his racism.
Consider this: He privately say "I like ice cream". His lover tapes this against his will and releases it. What would happen? Not a g@$@&*n thing.
What people are reacting to is his racism.
People think it's about his racism...but really, it's not.
What, because you personally don't want the controversy to be about his racism?
It's about the invasion of privacy and if blackmail and extortion are viable means to use as excuses to take something from someone.
It is not even a little bit about this. The answer is yes: all of those things are a viable means to use as "excuses" (read: legitimate reasons) to take something from someone when the something being taken can, by contract, basically be taken from you whenever the people you signed the contract with want to. There is no argument to be had, there.
You really want to stop talking about how this guy is a racist, huh?
I think you missed the first post on what the actual controversy is.
People think it's about his racism...but really, it's not. It's about the invasion of privacy and if blackmail and extortion are viable means to use as excuses to take something from someone.
No, it isn't, as much as you would like to use phrases like "extortion" (incorrectly) to absolve him of all responsibility and protect him from any censure.
Darn, if only someone could post an analogy related to Pathfinder.If you're travelling with someone who says they're a gnome cleric of Sarenrae, and your party members cast true sight and notice they're actually a polymorphed succubus, and they warned you - would you still trust the "cleric" afterwards, since they did not willingly part with the information about their actual form?
HAH! It's a trick question.
Nobody trusts Gnomes.
It's not tinfoil hat...does ANYONE EVEN WATCH Basketball here?
I mean, the commissioner can say what he want...but if the owners don't back him...RIGHT NOW his moves could be useless.
If they do back him, it turns out badly for them (the owners).
It's ALL about the politics. People think that it's about racism, but in truth...how can it be. Sterling has been publically racist and it's been known by the NBA and anyone who cared for over a decade!!!!
That's like saying the Rogue in PF is very weak because of 3.5...even though 3.5 was years ago and PF basically revamped it.
Sure, there's a connection...but the heart of the matter isn't 3.5 anymore.
The same with Sterling...the NBA is basically a big thing, but you're talking the US Federal government crushed down on him.
If the NBA or the Owners cared about his discrimination and racism there have been MULTIPLE and even larger cases and media sensations about his racism previously. IF it was about racism, this would have been a hot point long ago, especially when Sterling was being prosecuted by the US government and it was in the new everyday for a MUCH longer period than this current even thing has been around.
This is more about power in the NBA between the owners and the commissioner. We don't know how they'll vote yet, and the reason is because it's not a clear cut thing like people want it to be. If it was only about racism...then yes, it would be more clear cut...
But due to the complexities...it's not.
People might want it to be about racism, but that's only them thinking about it with their emotions.
In truth, it's far deeper and simpler, yet more complex than racism. That's the trigger, but the vote is more about economics and power rather than anything else...and what should or should not be allowed with that power...
Which is what I inclined in my original post.