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

[emperus]

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.

I have to think more about that.

The quote I always try to follow though (though it is hard on this forum) is.

“The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.”

- Socrates

 

[nehalem256]

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.

Using your strict definition of racism is Donald Sterling really racist?

 

[emperus]

Using your strict definition of racism is Donald Sterling really racist?

Huh? The fact that you can't answer the question is mind boggling. Listen to the tape, then read the definition. Actually, just go away.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

And going by the Mozilla CEO example. You better not say anything that might later become an unpopular view either even if at the time you say it is a view held by the majority of people.

 

[Retro Rob]

I have to think more about that.

The quote I always try to follow though (though it is hard on this forum) is.

There is nothing to think about...what's private, is private, right?

Just sayin', let someone use your own personal and private views against you and you'd be up a wall.

 

[Retro Rob]

And going by the Mozilla CEO example. You better not say anything that might later become an unpopular view either even if at the time you say it is a view held by the majority of people.

I agree. However, its all about how those views came to be public knowledge as well.

If you volunteered the information, then sure, you should be held liable -- but if someone recorded you without your knowledge and consent, then it should automatically be discounted.

All we have is our private thoughts; what's in our mind and heart. That should never be violated.

 

[emperus]

There is nothing to think about...what's private, is private, right?

Just sayin', let someone use your own personal and private views against you and you'd be up a wall.

But you're missing my point. If the person you represent in public is who you are in private, then you should be fine with that person getting out(unless someone tried to twist your words).

What you're saying is that you are mad that someone may tell the world who you really are.

And that is the part I have to think about.

 

[nehalem256]

But you're missing my point. If the person you represent in public is who you are in private, then you should be fine with that person getting out(unless someone tried to twist your words).

What you're saying is that you are mad that someone may tell the world who you really are.

And that is the part I have to think about.

What he is saying is that we shouldn't be implementing thought crime.

Which is essentially what being punished for private conversations and action is.

 

[Retro Rob]

But you're missing my point. If the person you represent in public is who you are in private, then you should be fine with that person getting out(unless someone tried to twist your words).

So basically, you seem ok with outing a person even if their rights are violated.

You're making yourself perfectly clear on that.

What you're saying is that you are mad that someone may tell the world who you really are.

This is dumb. Not close to what I said, and you're making stuff up.

 

[emperus]

What he is saying is that we shouldn't be implementing thought crime.

Which is essentially what being punished for private conversations and action is.

The last time I checked thoughts weren't conversation.

 

[smackababy]

Racism aside, should the NBA be legally allowed to force someone to sell a team he owns himself? I would think it would be in the Owners Association's best interest to vote 'no' to a forced sale. How long before they decide they just dislike how some owners handle their teams and vote them out as well.

I certainly hope Sterling fights a forced sale, if it comes to that.

 

[werepossum]

You think that isn't what liberals want?

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?

It's certainly what proggies want. Classical liberals, probably not.

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.

That's a good point. I'll just say that we should be minimizing such experience-based interpretations, not embracing them.

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.

Why on Earth would he apologize? He thought his words were in private, so he obviously meant them, and while he may not feel that blacks are inferior his remarks are crystal clear that he dislikes blacks purely for being black. He was complaining about freakin' Magic Johnson in particular, so it's not like he could claim he meant some stylized black thug culture. If a man is complaining about Magic Johnson, he has left himself zero wiggle room.

Any apology would be completely self-serving and not worth the air used in expressing it.

 

[emperus]

So basically, you seem ok with outing a person even if their rights are violated.

You're making yourself perfectly clear on that.

I'm not sure why you keep conflating the two things.

I endeavor to be whomever I want to pretend to be in public in private. I hope everything I share with people will be private, but, if my private convos get out there, and get me in trouble, I have no one to blame but me for 1.) making those comments and 2.) making it to someone who I shouldn't have trusted.

 

[Retro Rob]

Racism aside, should the NBA be legally allowed to force someone to sell a team he owns himself? I would think it would be in the Owners Association's best interest to vote 'no' to a forced sale. How long before they decide they just dislike how some owners handle their teams and vote them out as well.

I certainly hope Sterling fights a forced sale, if it comes to that.

I don't like the slippery slope argument, but it is legitimate here.

We have to keep in mind that he wasn't suspended because of racist actions (i.e, refusing to rent to minorities), he was suspended because people didn't like his comments.

This is why I'm not patting the NBA on the back. All owners were OK with this racist owning a team, until we found out about him...:whiste:

 

[nehalem256]

The last time I checked thoughts weren't conversation.

I would say that private intimate conversations are a lot closer to thoughts than they are to public actions.

Well "thought crime" may not be technically true. I think it aptly expresses the idea of punishing people for private intimate conversations.

I mean hey, what if Sterling had kept a personal diary and expressed some racist thoughts in it. Would you be okay with his ex-gf stealing his diary and releasing that to the public? After all written words clearly aren't thoughts either.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm not sure why you keep conflating the two things.

I endeavor to be whomever I want to pretend to be in public in private. I hope everything I share with people will be private, but, if my private convos get out there, and get me in trouble, I have no one to blame but me for 1.) making those comments and 2.) making it to someone who I shouldn't have trusted.

So you want to live in a world where you essentially cannot trust anyone?:\

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not sure why you keep conflating the two things.

I endeavor to be whomever I want to pretend to be in public in private. I hope everything I share with people will be private, but, if my private convos get out there, and get me in trouble, I have no one to blame but me for 1.) making those comments and 2.) making it to someone who I shouldn't have trusted.

You're probably the most idiotic poster I've seen. So having private views that you don't share means you're a fake, and if someone privately records you, its your fault and you'd take your punishment.

That's just a stupid viewpoint.

 

[emperus]

You're probably the most idiotic poster I've seen. So having private views that you don't share means you're a fake, and if someone privately records you, its your fault and you'd take your punishment.

That's just a stupid viewpoint.

Yes, I am because the point I've made you can't disagree with. It's stupid because that's obviously what grown ups do. So, grow up.

Isn't that the definition of what a phony is?

But in this case Sterling wasn't even a phony. He's been a racist his whole life, everyone in his environment knew that. He hasn't even pretended by apologizing. His private comments were who he was publically. The only fools were us.

 

[emperus]

So you want to live in a world where you essentially cannot trust anyone?:\

Like I said, I know who I am and am privately who I am in public. Some of my views, I wouldn't want to be publically known, so I am very careful who I share those with (the few friends I trust implicitly), but if it got out, what would I say. It is what I think.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, I am because the point I've made you can't disagree with. It's stupid because that's obviously what grown ups do. So, grow up.

Isn't that the definition of what a phony is?

But in this case Sterling wasn't even a phony. He's been a racist his whole life, everyone in his environment knew that. He hasn't even pretended by apologizing. His private comments were who he was publically. The only fools were us.

LOL -- I caught your edit and your second edit, as you said:

Btw, if you're not a phony why would you even hide your private comments

You re-read that, it sounded stupid because it is an idiotic thing to say.

I won't let you retract that.

 

[Retro Rob]

Like I said, I know who I am and am privately who I am in public. Some of my views, I wouldn't want to be publically known, so I am very careful who I share those with (the few friends I trust implicitly), but if it got out, what would I say. It is what I think.

Of course you don't, and that's the point. You're basically being hypocritical here.

You don't want some of your views known, but you're OK with people recording others' views and leading a public execution. :whiste:

You're not being consistent.

 

[emperus]

LOL -- I caught your edit and your second edit, as you said:

You re-read that, it sounded stupid because it is an idiotic thing to say.

I won't let you retract that.

Didn't want to get into the inevitable qualifications with it. I probably made that edit within a secound of posting. But, makes sense that you would have an issue with something someone decided to edit out of their post while arguing against thought police. Lol.

 

[emperus]

Of course you don't, and that's the point. You're basically being hypocritical here.

You don't want some of your views known, but you're OK with people recording others' views and leading a public execution. :whiste:

You're not being consistent.

What you are arguing is somebody writing a paper, deciding the language they used isn't clear enough so going to edit that paper. If you think that represents someone's views. You are really lost.

Sterling comments were 15 minutes long as recorded. He never claimed his comments were taken out of comments and never claimed he was mis- represented by his comments. Your arguing he shouldn't be responsible for comments he believes in just because they were made in private.

Again. figure out what point you are trying to make or trying to argue.

 

[Attic]

I have to think more about that.

The quote I always try to follow though (though it is hard on this forum) is.

It's about having a moral reserve. That's built over time, not in an instant. How much of life's difficulties can you take before you break. Easy to be generous once i'm already taken care of to the hilt, but when i'm at the margin of struggling with something, that's where real character shines through and where a lot of men break.

 

[Attic]

So do we think Sterling knew he was being recorded? The lawyer for the woman is saying Sterling knew he was recorded.

I think that given the length of the recording, and how it was used, that were Sterling made aware and in agreement with the recrording that this would have been.... recorded. And in that we'd already have audio of Sterling being made aware he was being recorded.

I don't see any leeway to see the lawyer as anything other than a flat out liar here.

I'd say 100% Sterling did not know he was being recorded, because if he did, we'd have proof rather than the lying lips of some lawyer.

Any good reasons for not recording the part where you make someone aware that they will be recorded other than intending for that someone to not be made aware that they are being recorded?

I'm a bit stunned the lawyer would visit such a blatant lie here, but maybe this doesn't stand out as much given the rest of whats going on. Of course lawyers excel at lying at opportune times when needed, i'm unclear if they insist on lying to themselves first and then the public or if the lies are attuned to be second nature in their discourse. Same lawyer in question here insists that Steviano and Sterling were not romantically or sexually linked at the time of the recording.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/29/kareem-abdul-jabbar-why-arent-we-also-outraged-that-donald-sterling-was-secretly-recorded/ Worthy read from Jabbar about other side of this whole thing.

“Again, there’s no excuse for his positions. There’s no excuse for what he said. There’s no excuse for anybody to support racism. There’s no place for it in our league, but there’s a very, very, very slippery slope.

“If it’s about racism and we’re ready to kick people out of the league, OK? Then what about homophobia? What about somebody who doesn’t like a particular religion. What about somebody who’s anti-semitic What about a xenophobe?

“In this country, people are allowed to be morons.”