Racism

Yeah, two : a racist kinda extremist and an untrustworthy gold-digger.




I don't care about NBA and such. As I said upper :





Then I wish you to be hurt by the two situations then tell us how you've felt about each. Surely will you sing another song, should you talk with people going through this, too. It is not a matter of mere talking taped behind your back, it is physical and psychological harm.

Or maybe because you read too much hentai, rape is a phantasm of yours so you don't see what's wrong about rape versus "gossip" ?

Such a deviant mentality, man...




That's your opinion. Other people aren't bound to think the same.

Seems rather the others owners don't share your opinion.




That's why the gold-digger is also a culprit.

Well now I know the kind of person I'm dealing with, so continuing on after this post is pretty pointless.




It's a matter of something happening to you against your will, and then people blaming you for what happened. I did mention that comparing it to sexual assault was too much exactly because of reasons like this. Even though they are comparable.




The legality aspect? No. It's not an opinion. Being racist isn't a crime either. Also didn't argue that he should be fired, although forcing him to sell his team and paying fines are strictly based upon any contract they've had in the past.



Now I'm sure we're done here.

Owner is going to make a fortune if he has to sell the team. He bought the team for 13 million it's estimated worth now is 800 million to a billion dollars. Racist pig wins either way. Sad.

You mean : you're defending him because you're too shy to shout aloud by yourself that you're racist too ? Aw, don't be so shy : after all it is just racism -- though it is "a bit" (or not) extrem to even deny any opinion freedom to his bimbo, and even talked about her as some mere and replaceable pawn.




Wow, and moreover you never had seriously work until now ? Be prepare to face some trials when you get a real job.




If it's too much, it is not comparable : it only underline how much it is different, and not alike as you seem to say/think.




Don't play dumb. I even put in bold your opinion :


Meaning you're agreeing with the offense.




Have I talked about their contract ? Excepted saying that I won't comment for lack of information and no big intellectual interest about, nonely.

Ask the people making him sell the team if they can/may do that.




Fine.

My point still stands! Fakku is not part of the government, but if you break their rules, they can delete your posts or ban you from the forums. The same logic applies here, this NBA team owner said something which is ethically against the "terms of conduct" desided by NBA, therefor, NBA has the right and power to set the punishment as long as it does not confilt state law. The Clippers owner agreed to those rules set by NBA once he became the owner of the team same as we agree to the rules of Fakku once we create our accounts and start posting here.



If you actually read what i wrote you would understand why that doesnt matter and i would not have to repeat myself. His words are part of the public record and there for NBA can use those words against him. The criminal charge of him being recorded illegally does not include NBA as a party. It is between him and the person who recorded him illegally.



Yes, i agree that being a racist is not a crime.

But saying your views in public (or in this case being recorded illegally and then made public) have consequences. If your views are made public they can be used against you and NBA has done just that.

I just love how the whole NBA make a big deal out of this racism against blacks when the only Asian (Asian-American Taiwanese Decent) have been victim of racism through out almost all his NBA career being kept under the rug

Heh ? Such a thing I didn't know. Is there no real anti-racim association there ? Or are you bound to go for an association or another according to the "race" ?

Haha, man I love being called a racist white tea party guy(sometimes even homophobic), only for people to later find out I'm Latino and Black. I dunno though, outright calling someone else you're talking to a racist when then never said anything racist is in poor form.


"I plainly don't care" Did you miss that part? Saying something offensive isn't and "offense", even with stricter guidelines of NBA. Causing a ruckus directly or indirectly and loosing investors is.



Well, if he does take action himself, he can sue the NBA as a party, especially if they're using illegally obtained material against him. I understand your point though, because they're pretty much letting him go based on bad publicity and loss of investors.

For what I know, "latino" here in Europe are "white". So what, you have also african ancestors ? Everybody when you look backward enough in the past.

That does not imply you would be tolerant toward people being "more black", more this or more that than you.

The gold-digger herself talked about her pedigree not being completely "white" -- maybe she used some bleach to get with that old man and they both agreed it was enough -- appart from having any contact whatever the form with "black people", even those "more white than [her]", etc.

Make me laugh, all those comparisons. Because not being completely this or that does not imply the individual would be either tolerant or not racist toward his relatives.

I think i would agree with you, because even in criminal court you cannot use illegally obtained evidence against anybody.

The slight problem here might be though (im talking about sterling suing NBA) is that NBA was not the party who obtained this information illegally. In sense they are using third parties information against sterling (this is what i ment with the public record) and since i dont know how much that matters in the USA state laws, i cant really comment on it honestly.

Finding it nearly impossible to care about the NBA guy, I'll just answer on double standards:

Yes, I think there are what I call positive racists and opposite racists. Positive racists are people who make positive claims about a race. So, instead of saying «All black people are criminals» they say «No black person is a criminal». It seems like a crude example and I'd be damned to provide a statement like that but the point is basically that, in trying to fight racism, they do the same thing only with positive statements. It gets back to looking at an entire ethnicity instead of looking at individuals.

Opposite racists are people who take advantage of their ethnicity. Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson for example. They aren't really destructive but they have written on their face «I'm black so I'll talk about black people this and white people that». Then they make jokes and say things about white people that, should they have been said about black people, they would be deemed «offensive». The same happens with jews. If you say something like «I don't agree with circumcision» they might call you a nazi, cry about their grandparents in Auschwitz and consider the argument won.

Again, I'm making short, simplistic arguments but I think the point is made.

As far as ending racism, I think Morgan Freeman had the right idea when he said «stop talking about it. I'll stop referring to you as a white man and you'll stop referring to me a black man». I think it is literally that simple. Why can't we all be men (and women)? Why do we have to be a [something] man?

It's still illegal to use in court. Imagine if all information gathered illegally from a third party was fare to use in court. However NBA isn't bound by such laws and they can remove a member by voting (in most organizations). In my opion they are doing the wrong thing and saving their own asses from the media. If they didn't fire him media would say NBA is okay with racism. I'm not really suprised though. It's a big company and they could lose a lot of money if they didn't get rid of him.

Either you're an idiot, or Europe has no idea what Ethnicity and race are.

"Latinos" are not a race. Yes, there are plenty of Latinos with "white" ancestors.(Spaniards and other settlers, but most Spaniards)

There are a few people who are Asian, yet can still be called Latino, same thing for those who are Black. The majority though are "Mestizo" which are a mix of indigenous people and the settlers.

You also forgot to respond to the other point. Where did I say something that makes me "racist". The reasons I mentioned information about myself was not because I think that not being white makes someone not racist, but that people often put labels on you without knowing a single fact about you and only based on preconceptions.

We care far less about color than culture here...

As for colors, if it's just about pigmentation I know "mulâtre", "basané", "bronzé", "crême", "café au lait", "bounty", "chocolat", "blanc comme un cul", "noir de chez noir"... and a ton of others nuances. But still here that does not count as some "race".

Should you be really exact, speaking about ethnicity is more "accurate", but we tend to prefer to speak about populations. Moreover scientifically there exist no race.

Races, whether for dogs, cats, horses... or even humans, are just a standard : an arbitrary set of criteria, which make push/draw back for reproduction the individuals who do not fit those criteria.


I'm aware that a bunch of people believe to have some worthy knowledge about races even human ; but as long as they're not some stock of Protected Designation of Origin breeders, I doubt that would really carry some objective value. Surely it means rather more about the voiced opinion's mindset.

Im curious, why do you think its wrong for the NBA to fire Sterling?

Mainly for the same reason Cruz737 does. He never intended to make his opinion public. He has been on NBA for a long time and so far he hasn't been unfair to black players (to my knowledge). My point is that he has the right be a racist and should not be punished for it. He hasn't done anything wrong.
If he had for example pushed to pay less to the black players it would be another matter.

The moment we start to punish people for their opinions alone we are on a dangerous road.

Then what about the fact he said the bimbo is replaceable because she has two "blacks" in her contacts list, one being "more white than [her]" ? Sounds like some punition :-/

Sounds above whole :
- either denying the bimbo acting liberty (there's no law against talking to black people)
- or even denying the bimbo opinion liberty (he rejects her right to not think like him)

Sounds like a strange racist thing to say. Saying a person is replaceable because (reason X) is an opion. She doesn't work for him or anything so it's not illegal.

True he told her what he thought but he still didn't really act on it. He did not use his position as a member of the NBA to stop her and broke no law and so those are not NBA's matter.

Similar situations appear normally in relatiships. "Son I don't want you to hang out with those kids" or "Katy I want you to stop seeing your ex even though you're just friends". He broke no law by telling her that he doesn't want her spending time with them. Had he gone and denied them access to the games this would be a different story.

Point is he did not force her to do anything but gave her a choise: Him or them. It's a shitty thing to do but people do these things.

I don't say he would have broken the law (though I'm not expert in USA laws either), I do say he has voiced a "threat" instead of "maybe" stated what you say in a way which would not have sounded like denying either her freedoms or her rights. [size=10]For example asking/voicing her to choose, as you yourself propose that can happen in some situations, would have been far less worse than what we heard, or just saying he parts with her without treating her like some "dog".[/h]

I know hostile people far more aware and far more careful, even if I doubt they would be "gentle" given the occasion.

Whatever. The fact remains that from now on (or at least the time being) Sterrling gives the image of a racist, and to top it all one making some big money by some "blacks"' work. So the public can become emotional and give into the memory of slavery, when white people were lazily making money while blacks were doing all the hard chores and hard work.

You know, public might hardly show some intelligence, and unpleasing the public gives big trials. Then the NBA, which lives mainly by the public support, just follows the mood, even though you would see no harm in being racist and still live from some "blacks"' work.

Would have Sterrling been less spiteful in his talking, since it's USA I'm not even sure your public would have been more tender toward his relationship with the NBA.

I do think racism is wrong but I think it is more important to defend everyone's right for an opinion. You know it wasn't that long ago that the tables were reversed and the majority despised the ones defending the slaves.

People change, laws change and as long as we condem people who think differently we will never be truly united as one.