LA Clippers owner racist rant at girlfriend

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Why does no one care about the illegality of the recording. That is an actual crime, and not just a thought crime. Are thought crimes worse than real crimes now?

Are the news organizations in California who are pirating this recording also committing a crime by distributing an illegal recording?

Perhaps because no one is this small-minded. That and I'd have to assume its not actually illegal to run a tape recorder when talking to someone.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
His wife is suing his ex-girlfriend for not giving back his sugar-daddy gifts. :D She needs get together for lunch with Jerry Sandusky's wife to talk about how their husbands are the real victims.
 
Last edited:

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Perhaps because no one is this small-minded. That and I'd have to assume its not actually illegal to run a tape recorder when talking to someone.

"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation." http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

The petty small minded people are those who think someone's opinion on race is worse than an actual crime.

The liberal media would certainly be concerned with the legality of it, if it were a Democrat who's phone conversation was illegally recorded. Maybe you've hear of a little thing called Watergate? The media in that case didn't care what the conversation was, just that it was illegally recorded.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,228
136
"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation." http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

The petty small minded people are those who think someone's opinion on race is worse than an actual crime.

The liberal media would certainly be concerned with the legality of it, if it were a Democrat who's phone conversation was illegally recorded. Maybe you've hear of a little thing called Watergate? The media in that case didn't care what the conversation was, just that it was illegally recorded.


First, the CA law only applies if both parties are in CA. If one party was in, say Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, then only one party has to consent. So, the question is where was she when the call was made?

And, while it may have been an illegal taping and release, it still doesn't blur the fact that Sterling is an absolute racist.

And I still don't understand what the Watergate situation has to do with any of this as the two situations are completely different. One is a gf recording an argument with her bf, while the other was a sitting President authorizing a break in and attempted wiretapping/bugging of the opposing political party's headquarters during an election. And while it's true both situations would have resulted in illegally obtained and recorded conversations, that fact (the potential recordings of the DNC's headquarters) was far from the central issue of that (the Watergate break in).
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,862
10,645
147
Why does no one care about the illegality of the recording. That is an actual crime, and not just a thought crime. Are thought crimes worse than real crimes now?

Are the news organizations in California who are pirating this recording also committing a crime by distributing an illegal recording?

As pointed out, the circumstances matter as to whether the recording was illegal or not, but that's not the take-away here.

No one cares about the legality of Sterling's "non-thought crime." The whole point here is that he's a rich, connected, dyed in the wool racist asshole concerned with what his other, rich, connected racist asshole buddies will think.

It's a window into the downside of our still not completely non-post racist society, and who the reptilian Sterling is like as a human being.

It's a clue for all you who wish to pretend otherwise as to why blacks may still feel that things like there not being enough polling booths in their districts is not some benign accident or oversight in our post racial utopia.

It's a further clue as to why the stubborn and spirited denial that our President is even an American persists even in the face of facts to the contrary.

Those pesky negroes who are not quite happy with continuing state of things may just have a point, you know?
 

BlitzPuppet

Platinum Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,460
7
81
Meh, there will always be racism in the human race. It will NEVER die out.

Want it to?

End the human race, that's the only way. As long as people are different/think different someone will always think their group/beliefs are better than the someone else's.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Meh, there will always be racism in the human race. It will NEVER die out.

Want it to?

End the human race, that's the only way. As long as people are different/think different someone will always think their group/beliefs are better than the someone else's.

Well there is certainly long-term hope. The isolation that produced these distinct genetic variations is rapidly disappearing. You can well imagine a much more homogeneous population a thousand years from now, assuming we don't screw it all up.
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
13,987
3,345
146
"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation." http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

The petty small minded people are those who think someone's opinion on race is worse than an actual crime.

The liberal media would certainly be concerned with the legality of it, if it were a Democrat who's phone conversation was illegally recorded. Maybe you've hear of a little thing called Watergate? The media in that case didn't care what the conversation was, just that it was illegally recorded.

quoted for colbert level funny:thumbsup:
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
I thought it was already very well known that this guy is a racist piece of shit. They should have removed him as an owner ages ago.

KT
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
The liberal media would certainly be concerned with the legality of it, if it were a Democrat who's phone conversation was illegally recorded. Maybe you've hear of a little thing called Watergate? The media in that case didn't care what the conversation was, just that it was illegally recorded.

PSA: the racist whose rights were so callously violated in this instance is in fact a Democrat.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
"California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation." http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

The petty small minded people are those who think someone's opinion on race is worse than an actual crime.

The liberal media would certainly be concerned with the legality of it, if it were a Democrat who's phone conversation was illegally recorded. Maybe you've hear of a little thing called Watergate? The media in that case didn't care what the conversation was, just that it was illegally recorded.

Wowzers. This forum's members really make me scratch my head in wonder sometimes. To paraphrase Animal House: Son, ignorant, argumentative and stupid is no way to go through life.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
I thought it was already very well known that this guy is a racist piece of shit. They should have removed him as an owner ages ago.

KT

how can you remove him as an owner. So do you feel the government should take away your home if you say something racist?
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,862
10,645
147
how can you remove him as an owner. So do you feel the government should take away your home if you say something racist?

Hugo, Hugo, Hugo . . . there hu go again. The government wouldn't be involved, but the NBA, a private, for-profit association, might move to uhhh, urge him to sell.
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
how can you remove him as an owner. So do you feel the government should take away your home if you say something racist?

You know the NBA is not a government organization, right? :hmm:

KT
 

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
Maybe I'm missing something... did he discriminate against blacks as an employer? Did he hold a public conference at the town square denouncing blacks?

This is just as absurd as the Mozilla CEO resignation.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
so why is this national news but an elected official publicly calling someone an Uncle Tom is of no note?

http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/02/alabamas_rep_alvin_holmes_stan.html

&#8220;I think Justice Clarence Thomas on the United States Supreme Court is an Uncle Tom, a black man allowing himself to be used to carry the message of a white man, which is against the interest of black people in America. In my opinion, that&#8217;s an Uncle Tom."
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Maybe I'm missing something... did he discriminate against blacks as an employer? Did he hold a public conference at the town square denouncing blacks?

This is just as absurd as the Mozilla CEO resignation.

Aw hell, no. He loves them black folks, long as they out on the court in them fancy shoes they wear sinkin' baskets for the fans. Jes' don' bring 'em to dinner, or to the club, ya know? It ain't fit to be seen associatin' with 'em. But as far as hoops is concerned, they sumpin' to watch, ain't they?
 

BikeJunkie

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2013
1,390
0
0
Aw hell, no. He loves them black folks, long as they out on the court in them fancy shoes they wear sinkin' baskets for the fans. Jes' don' bring 'em to dinner, or to the club, ya know? It ain't fit to be seen associatin' with 'em. But as far as hoops is concerned, they sumpin' to watch, ain't they?

Your attempt at sensationalist humor doesn't change the fact that this was a private conversation that, apparently, was illegally recorded. Would you like to be publicly scrutinized and held accountable for every thought you had? Of course not, this isn't 1940's Germany.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
so why is this national news but an elected official publicly calling someone an Uncle Tom is of no note?

http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/02/alabamas_rep_alvin_holmes_stan.html

That is some seriously stupid dissembling. This state rep happens to be black, and there is nothing intrinsically racist about calling someone an Uncle Tom (particularly where the accuser is himself black). Moreover, he is a state representative, not, say, a United States Senator. There are not enough hours in the day to turn every ill-advised comment by a state legislator into national news.
 
Last edited: