Racism

So recently a issue has arisen with the whole Donald Sterrling comments. If you haven't heard them go here.

So yes I agree with that it was racist and he should be punished, but first question is do you feel a ban for life and a forcing of him to sell the team is a valid repercussion?

Next question is that I heard more talk about. Do you think racism in this age is held to a double standard? Meaning if you are black and say something racist it isn't wrong, but a white individual basically is shunned. There has been a lot of discussion about this and was wondering the thoughts of people here. Do you still feel racism is a big part of society today? If so then is there any way to truly solve that problem? If no then what is now the major concern?

Neither albophobia nor negrophobia nor any form of racism are right. I don't see why saying racist stuff could be overlooked, whatever the target.

Man... That tape feels from another (older) age... There's still people like that nowadays ? Feels like returning in XXth century and before. Weird.

As for selling the team, I can't comment since I don't know much how it works in that country about those kind of work/link.

The sad thing is, they are concentrating on him because he's rich and is famous. If it was some random person, they would get scolded until the end instead of being forced to resign or whatever.

Let's not forget that the girlfriend is a gold digger, which is "forgotten" by the media, but I have seen many Yahoo articles which have amazing comments that bring out more truth than the media has when it comes to these stories.

Tbh I don't really care haha, racism and other stuff like sexism is something that will never die out, you can't kill ignorance and giving someone a 2.5 million fine that has a net worth of 1.9 billion sure who shows Donald's who boss.

I kind of get what he's saying.

In some instances, you have to accept the racism, in order to protect yourself or others. There are still quite a few places where racism is the norm, and those who don't engage in it or fight against it are often treated with hostility, sometimes even being attacked. It's also something that happens with homophobia, sexism etc.

But this guy's rich, powerful, and lives in America, which not only has laws against racism, but also a black president. His feeble excuse falls far from being an acceptable one.

And there is somewhat of a double standard in racism. It's not that black's being racist isn't wrong, it's just that it tends to be a lot easier for a white person to be accused of being racist.

Sadly racism is a part of society, especially here in Britain, what with the rise in UKIP support recently, and all the hostility towards immigrants. It's not a part that most people care for, and for the most part, it is caused by some newspapers and such stirring up hostility so they can have something to write about.

I do, however, feel that we have gotten to the point, at least in this country, that enough people know racism is bad that if we leave it, it will eventually die out. The old racists like this guy will die off, newspapers like those I mentioned will be taken over by people who won't allow the racism, and the new young generation will grow up in a more multicultural society than before.

The punishment for "X" crime is dependent on the law, wheter i agree with the law or not, i would say yes, the punishment in this case and context fits the crime. I dont know anything about the person in question or how he became rich, but a person in his position should be to some extent more responsible for what he does and says.
Surely and easily things what people say and do can be taken out of context, but he is a "powerful" person, he has influence and his views, to extent, represent his companies views. If a NBA Basketball team owner says what he says, i personally would agree that he should be removed from the enterprise of NBA Basketball.



Racism from both sides SHOULD BE WRONG, but as we know it is not. IMO part of the reason why it is not considered wrong when a black person calls a white person a "cracker" or whatever, has to do with minority vs majority. Also racism against whites is not taken seriesly due to the history between whites and blacks (specially) in States. For long periods we owned blacks for slaves and i think most of the people still hide under that fact, when ever there is racism against whites as though that justifyis it.

And to turn it around

For example in China or asia in general, i dont think asians being racist towards blacks or whites is taken seriesly, but if a black or white is racist towards asians while being in asia, i think that would be a media headline same as here when white is racist towards blacks. Reason being because they dont have the history of slavery based on skin colour (atleast i have never heard of), but it is still a minority vs majority issue.

Yeah, he said some pretty racist things, but it's not an excuse to illegally record someone in their own home.

Forcing him to sell the team is messed up, but considering the position the NBA is in, with advertisers wanting to move away from them because of this incident, I'm not surprised nor do I judge them to heavily for wanting to disassociate with him. The fine seems unnecessary though.

As for punishing racism, not really sure I agree. It's fine to criticize racist, exclude and disassociate yourself from them to a certain degree(they should still be able to call the police or fire department without being hanged up on), but going beyond that isn't really a fair.(unless there's a crime involved)

@cocconut
Asian countries have a long history of ethnic discrimination, especially in China where there's quite a variety. It's just not treated the same way. Or at least to my knowledge.

Any opinion may be put in act at any time. Moreover, let the emotions override and the situation can only escalate. Keeping some control of any situation is like a work/play of punctuated equilibriums.

[size=10]As for example put racism + emotions and it can drive to the holocaust, the slavery, and all sorts or abuses.[/h]

Would you have a society where some extremism is the rule, you'll create internal opposition. Try to erase any opposition, you'll gain fear and other extreme emotions. Increase extreme emotions, you'll lose rationality and/or stability.


All to say exremism(s) (emotions, opinions, acting, power...) is/are barely compatible with safety. From that fact, in the social view point you can't let free extremisms and must keep some control as well as everything else. You can't suppress any or every oppositions (even oppositions to some other opposition), but you must keep them under some extent.

Then the laws tell the way and the extent, as well as sentences and decisions as an expression of laws and society will.


[size=10]EDIT : I miss those foolish wild world wide hopes/dreams, sleeping in the depth of the 1990's and since then lost, like this one...[/h]

I dont think it is, if you are part of the NBA organisation by owning a team, i assume there are some kind of contracts in place that state what you can and what you can not do as a owner of a NBA basketball team. If all types of racism is considered a big nono and the punishment for that is removal from NBA, then i think it is fair, but yeah i have no idea if such contracts are in place or not, just an assumption.

As an example we are not allowed to post lolicon or beastiality pictures/mangas on this site, even though it might not be illegal in your state law, but everybody who comes to these forums agrees to the rules set by Fakku.




Dont know what basis they use for the amount of the fine




I totally agree, but in this case i personally dont see how they can disassociate themshelves from the racist other than what has been done. If they let him stay as a owner of the team, then that would mean that one of the NBA teams owners is a racist and the players of Clippers team would play for a racist or in a team owned by racist. They could not get away from those facts.
Ofcoarse i dont think those points would be the things that define the NBA, the team or the players, but i personally think it would not look good.

It's was the right thing to do in terms of banning him from the NBA for life, but the fine? Not nearly substantial enough for someone of his wealth. The fine has to be something that would actually make him think that his actions were bad, the ban could have done that but the fine is probably something he'd laugh at.

I kind of understand the idea about the double standards regarding racism, but I think considering what white people have done in the past some leniency is required. As a long-term solution though that leniency may have negative repercussions like making people think they have a larger right to say what they want about someone else since they may be a different ethnicity to them.

I think racism is...more subtle than it used to be but it's still largely evident in modern society, not that we haven't come far in the last few decades but equality still isn't anywhere near yet. I mean, we still have problems with prejudice based on genders regarding how some women are paid less in comparison to men. As to fixing it? Not entirely sure, you can't really ever stop racism; just diminish it to a negligible state to when you'll hardly ever hear about it. People will always be racist sadly, so the best thing to do is educate the next generation and hope for the best.

It's as if you completely ignored my first sentence.

To be short : he should be more aware of his status even in private situation.

You could also say he reaps what he sows -- being racist or buying the affection of some gold-digger.

As for the (il)legality, that does not matter for paparazzis as long as some scandale creates the buzz and makes them sell.


I barely could feel some pity for a man who can pay any lawyers team of his choice to defend him, without much worries than a temporary scandale and no physical harm, not even real financial damage either.

I'm sure he can divorce quite easily from that gold-digger with stuff like that. So what ? Should we defend the fact he's racist to such extent just because he had not play wisely with his money ? Yeah : play (having fun) with his money to pay himself some bimbo. No complaint. He sure had fun with her through his powerful money. When you play, sometime you win and sometime you lose.

The reason i "ignored" your first sentence is because for first, i think it is irrelevent at this point. What he said is in the public record. Wheter it was recorded illegally or not does not affect the fact what he said. If it was recorded illegally, that is a separate issue and includes different parties.

Second, i simply dont know if it is true, that he was illegally recorded and im not too keen on spending time finding it out.

It's easy to say that someone should be aware of their surroundings, but it's literally victim blaming.

I am not going to have that conversation again.


It is very relevant to the entire situation and my point. If you're going to right out admit you're not going to bother to try and learn about the situation, you shouldn't bother putting in your 2 cents.

I don't see a "pitiful victim", rather some bettor losing his bet on the faith placed into his not-so-well-enough-bought gold-digger bimbo.

Surely if he had paid a little more, the issue would have been different.

>someone is a "bad" person
>someone does something illegal to him
>it's no longer a crime because you don't like him

This is why I don't like having this conversation. I mean yeah, he could have taken millions of measures to make sure none of that ever happened, heck he could have not said what he said at all. I could make a comparison to a women getting date raped and blaming her for not checking her drink constantly, or coming with trusted friends, but that's going a bit too far. Different people = different moral compasses.


In the end of the day, something illegal happened to him, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's getting a legal team ready to take care of this.

Please let us all know just how relevant it actually is instead of just saying it is.

I gave my 2 cents because i think my arguements are valid and well reasoned and address the issue, which is racism, not wheter he was illegally recorded or not.

I addressed all your points in my opinion very clearly, and if you cloud all those points to this charge of "he was recorded illegally", then you should expand to that little more than just stating it.



If the NBA body/organisation has the legal power to force someone to sell their shares/ownership of a team, then they should be allowed to use that power.

If this is just a philosophical disagreement wheter NBA should have this power or not (in the case of team owner being racist), then we can discuss that too.

Don't make my mouth say what I don't.

You have two culprits, and that's all.



Don't compare what is not comparable. Do you know what is sex with coercion ???

Do you know what means coercion ? Was he forced to say what he did ?

What a weird moral you show.




So no need to worry for him.

You implied that he wasn't a great person to begin with, and that his action led to him being recorded against his will. I'm not putting words into your mouth. Also 2 culprits?

The NBA is a privately owned entity and not part of govt. He didn't break any laws regarding this. He maybe broken some terms of conduct according the NBA, and they will probably settle something in or out of court, but I'm not going to call him a culprit for this.

Maybe for being a slumlord and treating his tenants like crap I would, although NBA didn't seem to care.




Something happened to him against his will. Completely comparable. Like or not, what happened to him was illegal, and I plainly don't care if what he said was offensive and misguided.
I tend to favor free speech and right of people not be recorded against their will unless it's specific cases of documenting criminal behavior(child/spousal abuse, robberies, etc. etc.). This man's words will probably never affect me, no matter how vile they may be, nor will I use his shitty outlook on life to deprive him of his rights.