LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling's Racist Rant Caught On Tape

[Atomic Playboy]

How long have I been suffering under the incorrect delusion (taught in school) that racism is discrimination on the basis of race?

Apparently ever since you were taught that. Discrimination can be a form that racism takes, but one doesn't need to discriminate to be racist.

racism - noun - a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others

 

[werepossum]

How long have I been suffering under the incorrect delusion (taught in school) that racism is discrimination on the basis of race?

We were actually taught that racism was the belief that one race is inherently inferior or superior, discrimination was giving preferential or disadvantaged treatment, prejudice was judging someone on superficial attributes not relevant to the characteristic being judged, and bigotry was just plain not liking some group regardless of the underlying reason. Obviously all of these depended on the judgement being unreasonable; it would be acceptable for me to judge a dwarf's chance of playing professional basketball or not like child molesters as a group.

Now of course I understand that minorities have richer experiences and it's racism if I don't defer to them.

 

[cabri]

The part that is missing is the belief that the other race is ingerently inferior or that your race is inherently superior.

So if one feels that another person is incapable of understanding because of race....

Seems like acting like a race is then superior. Promoting exactly what you rail against.
Being color blind is tough, to allow color into decisions is wrong.

Pot, meet kettle

 

[emperus]

So if one feels that another person is incapable of understanding because of race....

Seems like acting like a race is then superior. Promoting exactly what you rail against.
Being color blind is tough, to allow color into decisions is wrong.

Pot, meet kettle

Sorry, I don't speak stupid. Try again and if I understand what you're trying to say, maybe I'll have a response.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I've read that speech and many others before her hearings. It is not a single out-of-context quote, it's a staple of her speeches. Read the CNN article; over and over and over she makes the same exact point.

Yes, but you don't seem to understand what that point actually is. It is NOT that she is a better judge than any white man. It's that what we need is a diversity of opinion and that is best obtained by having a diversity of backgrounds on the Court (or legislature or any area of government). Antonin Scalia knows as much about being a Latina woman as Sotomayor knows about being an Italian-American (actually, probably less, as Italian-Americans are much more well represented in popular culture than Latina women). Having a diversity of opinion is a noble goal to shoot for.

Let's go with a more personal touch. Clarence Thomas knows more about growing up black than I do. Samuel Alito knows more about growing up on the East Coast than I do. I know more about being raised by gay parents than either of them. They know a whole hell of a lot more about the law than I do, but when it comes to the topic of gay marriage, I feel like I know more about the subject than them, not because of my knowledge of the law, but because of my personal background. Sotomayor is making the same case from the perspective of a Latina woman reviewing a history of cases involving minorities and women that were decided by neither minorities nor women; her personal experience gives her a unique view on those subjects that someone like Earl Warren simply couldn't have. She was never making the case that Latina women are better judges than white men.

 

[shira]

I agree with all that. I do however think Sterling is a bit different being as he enjoys some measure of control over a lot of black people, has apparently put similar beliefs into deeds, and can potentially cost the NBA a LOT of money. I'd argue that racism is also a bit different. But I definitely see your point, I just can't see giving people a free ride because they were assholes with an expectation of privacy. If you think people should be more tolerant of others' views in general, even where those views are morally repugnant, I'll agree.

Again, I have no sympathy for Sterling because he richly deserves his disgrace based on his past racist actions. But it's really too bad that all those who conveniently overlooked his racist actions as long as they weren't widely known to the public aren't themselves being called out by name and disgraced.

Anyone who thinks that the NBA's punishment of Sterling and statements by owners expressing "outrage" are anything more than just a Kabuki dance to appease the public is pretty naive.

 

[Knowing]

Apparently ever since you were taught that. Discrimination can be a form that racism takes, but one doesn't need to discriminate to be racist.

racism - noun - a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others

If I don't discriminate, then how would anyone know if I was a thought criminal? If you treat everyone equally, what difference does it make if you believe the people you treat equally are untermenschen?

 

[echo4747]

If Sterling apologized ( he hasn't yet) and asked for forgiveness, who here could forgive him? What would he need to do for you to forgive him?

 

[emperus]

If Sterling apologized ( he hasn't yet) and asked for forgiveness, who here could forgive him? What would he need to do for you to forgive him?

That's something I missed, he hasn't apologized yet. He doesn't even care about pretense.

The guys 80. Is he really going to change?

 

[echo4747]

The guys 80. Is he really going to change?

I would say odds are at his age he won't change... but I imagine its possible. Did he ever apologize for his racists action from the past (when he was fined close to 3 million)

 

[emperus]

I would say odds are at his age he won't change... but I imagine its possible. Did he ever apologize for his racists action from the past (when he was fined close to 3 million)

Yeah, I guess anything is possible. I don't know if he ever apologized. I'll have to look into that.

 

[UberNeuman]

The guys 80. Is he really going to change?

Have you seen him? His transformation into a sandworm looks nearly complete.

 

[emperus]

Have you seen him? His transformation into a sandworm looks nearly complete.

 

[cabri]

Sorry, I don't speak stupid. Try again and if I understand what you're trying to say, maybe I'll have a response.

1) I do not recall Zimmerman being convicted of any charges even though he was being railroaded with you on the front row cheering section, defending Martin at all costs. Cherub!!

2) As before, when you ate confronted with the truth/facts about your behavior, you choose to stick your fingers in your eats.

Bigots and racists hate when the mirror is held up for tbem to see what they are to the rest ofthe ppeople, not just what they think of themselves

 

[emperus]

1) I do not recall Zimmerman being convicted of any charges even though he was being railroaded with you on the front row cheering section, defending Martin at all costs. Cherub!!

2) As before, when you ate confronted with the truth/facts about your behavior, you choose to stick your fingers in your eats.

Bigots and racists hate when the mirror is held up for tbem to see what they are to the rest ofthe ppeople, not just what they think of themselves

We've been over the definition of racist. I suggest you learn it. It's hard to take anyone serious that doesn't know the meaning of the words they are using.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, but you don't seem to understand what that point actually is. It is NOT that she is a better judge than any white man. It's that what we need is a diversity of opinion and that is best obtained by having a diversity of backgrounds on the Court (or legislature or any area of government). Antonin Scalia knows as much about being a Latina woman as Sotomayor knows about being an Italian-American (actually, probably less, as Italian-Americans are much more well represented in popular culture than Latina women). Having a diversity of opinion is a noble goal to shoot for.

Let's go with a more personal touch. Clarence Thomas knows more about growing up black than I do. Samuel Alito knows more about growing up on the East Coast than I do. I know more about being raised by gay parents than either of them. They know a whole hell of a lot more about the law than I do, but when it comes to the topic of gay marriage, I feel like I know more about the subject than them, not because of my knowledge of the law, but because of my personal background. Sotomayor is making the same case from the perspective of a Latina woman reviewing a history of cases involving minorities and women that were decided by neither minorities nor women; her personal experience gives her a unique view on those subjects that someone like Earl Warren simply couldn't have. She was never making the case that Latina women are better judges than white men.

Two things. First, she has repeatedly and specifically claimed that a "wise Latina" would make a better decision than would a white man, so I don't know how you're claiming otherwise. The law is the law, and as Fern points out Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. Saying we need diversity of experience is specifically rejecting that concept. The only way that diversity of experience is relevant is if we're to have different rules for different groups. If one breaks the law, I do not give two flying ferret fucks if your cultural heritage says that behavior is appropriate. We cannot be one society, one melting pot, if we judge the legality of people's behavior based on their cultural heritage and experience. That's just a return to the days of one action being legal for white but illegal for blacks, or sodomy being legal for straights but illegal for gays.

Second, her comments might have had some small legitimacy for primary courts where the judge considers punishment based partly on intent and circumstances, but not for any appellate court, much less for SCOTUS. An appellate court is and must be concerned only with the legal questions it hears. One is correct under the law or incorrect under the law depending solely on the law, not on one's motivations, so trying to make sure we have enough judges who understand that motivation is a step backward. If we undermine this we no longer have the rule of law; we have the rule of man, where men and women set up different rules for different groups.

Again, I have no sympathy for Sterling because he richly deserves his disgrace based on his past racist actions. But it's really too bad that all those who conveniently overlooked his racist actions as long as they weren't widely known to the public aren't themselves being called out by name and disgraced.

Anyone who thinks that the NBA's punishment of Sterling and statements by owners expressing "outrage" are anything more than just a Kabuki dance to appease the public is pretty naive.

I agree completely. There should ideally be a vetting process before one is allowed to buy a team, where the league does a background check and if someone is as Sterling appears to be, up front tells him he is not acceptable or that the league has certain concerns which first must be settled to the league's satisfaction. But honestly, that's a business decision. If the league prefers to ignore such things until they come to light and then go all medieval on they asses, I really have no problem with that - although like you I consider this purely a business decision rather than any sort of moral decision.

 

[nehalem256]

Two things. First, she has repeatedly and specifically claimed that a "wise Latina" would make a better decision than would a white man, so I don't know how you're claiming otherwise. The law is the law, and as Fern points out Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. Saying we need diversity of experience is specifically rejecting that concept. The only way that diversity of experience is relevant is if we're to have different rules for different groups. If one breaks the law, I do not give two flying ferret fucks if your cultural heritage says that behavior is appropriate. We cannot be one society, one melting pot, if we judge the legality of people's behavior based on their cultural heritage and experience. That's just a return to the days of one action being legal for white but illegal for blacks, or sodomy being legal for straights but illegal for gays.

Second, her comments might have had some small legitimacy for primary courts where the judge considers punishment based partly on intent and circumstances, but not for any appellate court, much less for SCOTUS. An appellate court is and must be concerned only with the legal questions it hears. One is correct under the law or incorrect under the law depending solely on the law, not on one's motivations, so trying to make sure we have enough judges who understand that motivation is a step backward. If we undermine this we no longer have the rule of law; we have the rule of man, where men and women set up different rules for different groups.

You think that isn't what liberals want?

crosses the constitutional boundary if it becomes “excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” 469 U. S., at 342 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
"Here, “the nature of the [supposed] infraction,” the slim basis for suspecting Savana Redding, and her “age and sex,” ibid., establish beyond doubt that Assistant Principal Wilson’s order cannot be reconciled with this Court’s opinion in T. L. O. Wilson’s treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safford_Unified_School_District_v._Redding

According to Justice Ginsburg a search can be legal for a male, but illegal for a female...

Equality?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Second, her comments might have had some small legitimacy for primary courts where the judge considers punishment based partly on intent and circumstances, but not for any appellate court, much less for SCOTUS. An appellate court is and must be concerned only with the legal questions it hears. One is correct under the law or incorrect under the law depending solely on the law, not on one's motivations, so trying to make sure we have enough judges who understand that motivation is a step backward. If we undermine this we no longer have the rule of law; we have the rule of man, where men and women set up different rules for different groups.

If this is true, why do Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer so frequently disagree on their interpretation of the law? It's not just about law, it's about interpretation of law based on the intent of legislation, and people will have different opinions on that based on their personal experiences. The idea that "wise people will always reach the same conclusion" about nuanced situations is poppycock; if that were the case, every Supreme Court case would be decided 9-0. A diversity of opinion and experience benefits everyone.

 

[emperus]

The law is the law, and as Fern points out Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. Saying we need diversity of experience is specifically rejecting that concept.

You've just discounted centuries of jurisprudence by that one bolded statement. The law has evolved, in fact it's evolved from one court to the other. The Robert's Court alone has upended decades of established precedent or laws. In fact decades ago a black person was 3/5 of a person. That changed. We have amendments to the Constitution which are changes to the law. If the law is the law how did these laws change? If the law is the law then wouldn't all laws be basically static? Or are you arguing that the law is static but people got it wrong at a time? Then what caused people to get it right? How can you discount experience in the evolution of these laws?

It really surprises me that you are making a case against experience being beneficial. That would seem to discount reading, education and travel. All the things which diversify our experiences.

It seems like you've already decided to be against Sotomayor's experience point and are now reaching for arguments to support the conclusion you've already come to.

 

[nehalem256]

If this is true, why do Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer so frequently disagree on their interpretation of the law? It's not just about law, it's about interpretation of law based on the intent of legislation, and people will have different opinions on that based on their personal experiences. The idea that "wise people will always reach the same conclusion" about nuanced situations is poppycock; if that were the case, every Supreme Court case would be decided 9-0. A diversity of opinion and experience benefits everyone.

The bolded is the important part. A woman that apparently believes that half the people in the world(Asians) don't exist is far from wise. No matter how "diverse" her experiences.

 

[nehalem256]

You've just discounted centuries of jurisprudence by that one bolded statement. The law has evolved, in fact it's evolved from one court to the other. The Robert's Court alone has upended decades of established precedent or laws. In fact decades ago a black person was 3/5 of a person. That changed. We have amendments to the Constitution which are changes to the law. If the law is the law how did these laws change? If the law is the law then wouldn't all laws be basically static? Or are you arguing that the law is static but people got it wrong at a time? Then what caused people to get it right? How can you discount experience in the evolution of these laws?

Are you really this stupid?

Judges are suppose to rule on the law as the law is at the time the ruling is made.

Legislatures are free to make or repeal laws. Changing laws legislatively is completely different than changing them judicially.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah, I guess anything is possible. I don't know if he ever apologized. I'll have to look into that.

Don't think he ever apologized, nor ever will. Guys that old aren't likely to change.

A terrible precedent has been set, though. Our government does enough spying on us, and a complaining public has just basically OK'd more spying, but by our most intimate acquaintances.

Another, and perhaps more dangerous, precedent is that you can no longer hold your own views without reprisal(s), unless we all say you can.

Sterling represents the bad old days, and his GF represents a horrifying future.

 

[emperus]

Are you really this stupid?

Judges are suppose to rule on the law as the law is at the time the ruling is made.

Legislatures are free to make or repeal laws. Changing laws legislatively is completely different than changing them judicially.

Coming from you.. eh. You may want to do some research on the Supreme Court. Seems like you have a very simplistic view of laws.

 

[cabri]

We've been over the definition of racist. I suggest you learn it. It's hard to take anyone serious that doesn't know the meaning of the words they are using.

From your previous quote
[

noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists

1. 1.
   a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
   synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More "he was exposed as a racist"
   
   
   (racially) discriminatory, racialist, prejudiced, bigoted
   "a racist society"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

adjective
noun: racist; plural noun: racists; adjective: racist

1. 1.
   having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
   "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"
   

1. 
   
   
   
   

Racist would be one that believes/practices racism.

And you have demonstrated it here in ATPN.

 

[emperus]

From your previous quote
[
[/LIST]
Racist would be one that believes/practices racism.

And you have demonstrated it here in ATPN.

a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

You're not even trying. I bolded in red the pertinent words from your definition. Ask yourself, do you think I believe African Americans are superior to Caucasians? If so, can you quote anything I've written to intimate that?

You attempted to prove you could use the word correctly, but again, incorrectly used the word.