Is being racist a right?[W:343]

zimmer said:

No. And I didn't take it personally. I read you blanket statement as just that. You said "the right", as in its entirety.

Would you like to retract the original statement?

Click to expand...

But it's OK to make blanket statements about "the left...."

Wiseone said:

If you have to preface or suffix something you say with "I'm not a racist, but" you might want to take a closer look at what you're about to say.

.

Click to expand...

But some of his best friends there in the Idaho panhandle are black, Wiseone!

rocket88 said:

The people of LA have already decided long ago that they don't give a **** about the Clippers. There's the whole issue of the other, more successful NBA franchise in the same building.

But yes, if black players hesitate to sign with your team and you're playing second fiddle, the value of your franchise will diminish.

Click to expand...

So then if the city of LA doesn't give a **** about the Clippers, and they're a second rate organization, then this is all a non-issue.

rocket88 said:

Umm...over and over again they claim the right to free association and that they can discriminate against anyone if they so choose.

Click to expand...

Some may be opposed to gay marriage, but give me some links where the right is against free association or gay employees.

The statement is nuts, and you showed a level of intellectual dishonesty or pure ignorance by jumping in in its defense and adding to the idiocy of the original statement with your bit about free association.

GottaGo said:

Believing something is one thing. Acting on it or verbalizing it to the detriment of others is another.....

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? What is free speech if not the right to say "offensive" things? Is verbalizing a NO vote to a "good" bill (say reparations to descendants of slavery) not able to be said to be to the detriment of others (those that would benefit from it or voted YES)?

EDIT: What you seem to support is that only "politically correct" speech is protected.

rocket88 said:

But it's OK to make blanket statements about "the left...."

Click to expand...

Yes... sometimes it is. But the blanket statement and your additions... are laughable my Socialist friend.

rocket88 said:

Umm...over and over again they claim the right to free association and that they can discriminate against anyone if they so choose.

Click to expand...

Go find some links.

Are you Navy?

zimmer said:

Yes... sometimes it is. But the blanket statement and your additions... are laughable my Socialist friend.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

Are you kidding me? What is free speech if not the right to say "offensive" things? Is verbalizing a NO vote to a "good" bill (say reparations to descendants of slavery) not able to be said to be to the detriment of others (those that would benefit from it or voted YES)?

EDIT: What you seem to support is that only "politically correct" speech is protected.

Click to expand...

*sigh*
People are welcome to say virtually anything they want, IF they are willing to accept the consequences.

Your EDIT: Where did I say that?

justabubba said:

you are saying the right does not support and defend 'at will' employment?

Click to expand...

I am saying the statement as Nextera put it and rocket defended is utter nonsense.

zimmer said:

Some may be opposed to gay marriage, but give me some links where the right is against free association or gay employees.

The statement is nuts, and you showed a level of intellectual dishonesty or pure ignorance by jumping in in its defense and adding to the idiocy of the original statement with your bit about free association.

Click to expand...

It's all over the forum here. The whole legal defense of the Boy Scouts in banning gay scoutmasters was based on that concept.

Homosexuality and the Law: A Dictionary - Chuck Stewart - Google Books

If a businessman is deprived of the right to discriminate against others for some choices or actions they take, can he long expect that he will be allowed to fire an employee who does not perform his job well.

Click to expand...

An Objectivist Individualist: Freedom of Association and Anti-Gay Discrimination

zimmer said:

Yes... sometimes it is. But the blanket statement and your additions... are laughable my Socialist friend.

Click to expand...

So it's OK to make blanket statements about "the left" but not about "the right." And I'm the hypocrite....OK. Maybe in your twisted imagination.

tres borrachos said:

So then if the city of LA doesn't give a **** about the Clippers, and they're a second rate organization, then this is all a non-issue.

Click to expand...

You were saying it had no effect on the value of a franchise. Inasmuch as it affects their ability to compete in their market, it does.

rocket88 said:

You were saying it had no effect on the value of a franchise. Inasmuch as it affects their ability to compete in their market, it does.

Click to expand...

And I will bet money on the fact that if there are any fans in the town, they will go to a game, in spite of their feelings for Sterling.

Just like when the media tried to turn people against Ed Snider, the owner of the Flyers, a few years back when his conservative politics were on parade. It ended up not working. Six years later, his franchise is worth more than ever, and you can go to a Flyers game and see a parking lot filled with Obama stickers. Sports fans, real ones anyway, don't give a **** in the end about politics.

GottaGo said:

Believing something is one thing. Acting on it or verbalizing it to the detriment of others is another.....

Click to expand...

Verbalizing it is never to the detriment of others. Acting might be.

You have the right and should have the right to express or verbalize any opinion even if offensive.

Of course others have the right to stop listening to you associating with you or whatever.

sawyerloggingon said:

All this media blitz on Bundy and The basketball guy has me wondering if we now have thought police in this country. I'm not racist myself but I don't see what the big deal is if you are. We have laws to protect people from racism so your opinion should be a right and you should not be punished for what you believe. IMO firing someone for being a racist is anti American and flies in the face of free speech.

Click to expand...

Being a racist is a right. There are times, though, that it's against the law to act on that racism. (Public accommodations, for example.)

However, racists have to be prepared for people to have no sympathy for their views. Paying the consequences of these bigoted views is often painful.

tres borrachos said:

And I will bet money on the fact that if there are any fans in the town, they will go to a game, in spite of their feelings for Sterling.

Just like when the media tried to turn people against Ed Snider, the owner of the Flyers, a few years back when his conservative politics were on parade. It ended up not working. Six years later, his franchise is worth more than ever, and you can go to a Flyers game and see a parking lot filled with Obama stickers. Sports fans, real ones anyway, don't give a **** in the end about politics.

Click to expand...

Yup...I am and I don't.

zimmer said:

I am saying the statement as Nextera put it and rocket defended is utter nonsense.

Click to expand...

are you saying the right does not support and defend 'at will' employment?

sawyerloggingon said:

All this media blitz on Bundy and The basketball guy has me wondering if we now have thought police in this country. I'm not racist myself but I don't see what the big deal is if you are. We have laws to protect people from racism so your opinion should be a right and you should not be punished for what you believe. IMO firing someone for being a racist is anti American and flies in the face of free speech.

Click to expand...

you have the right to hold any racist view that you want. however, as you guys accurately pointed out (but have somehow forgotten) during the Dixie Chicks thing ten years ago, there is no constitutional right to consequence free speech. right or wrong, they pissed off their audience and got yanked from the radio for a while. this guy has pissed off pretty much all of the fans, the coach, and the team itself. no one is going to arrest him for his opinions, but there will still be economic consequences.

sawyerloggingon said:

All this media blitz on Bundy and The basketball guy has me wondering if we now have thought police in this country. I'm not racist myself but I don't see what the big deal is if you are. We have laws to protect people from racism so your opinion should be a right and you should not be punished for what you believe. IMO firing someone for being a racist is anti American and flies in the face of free speech.

Click to expand...

Actually you don't understand free speech if you think that.

But first you have a right to free speech but you have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of that speech. Just like every other right. But let's take a look.

There is a natural right to believe what you want and to let people know. That is clearly something that predates the various legal protections of that right like the Bill of Rights in England and of course the 1st amendment. But freedom to say something is not the same as freedom of consequences. But in legal and social ways depending on where you say it. Now I believe that you should be free of legal consequences in most cases for political speech. It is difficult for me sometimes, for example it is not a crime for the God Hates Fag Church to stand outside my building and protest. But that does not mean we can have people stand between them and the people they are yelling at. The same with anti-abortion protesters. Every day for years I saw a woman outside a Planned Parenthood center with a sign. She was on public land and just handed out pamphlets that were gross and in some cases bent the truth. But she should not be arrested. Neither should the street preacher or the gun enthusiast, hippie, pro-pot advocate, Free Tibet, or Fair Play of Cuba. All have the right to say what they say, and I would like to see everywhere in the world that they are protected from government intervention and arrest. Saying something bad about the king, president, government or produce shouldn't be a crime. (BTW free speech advocates should be really upset about certain states having laws where you can't disparage certain food items).

Thought police are not in this country. No one I know has advocated that either Bundy or Sterling be arrested for their words. But let's take Bundy. He was a classic example of a person that drew on the liberal/Conservative divide. For some he was standing up to the tyranny of government over-reach (even though it was Ronald Reagan that was the over-reacher by executive order about grazing fees) The right rallied around him and the left thought the right rallying was insane. Which it really was, this was not a worthy expression of their anxiety. When the racist diatribe was released, it poured gasoline on the fire of the debate but what happened, the right that totally stood with him abandoned him immediately. Why? Because his words were so offensive that they didn't want to be splashed with the filth that was being spewed. (Though some on the right stood by him and tried to explain how what he said wasn't racist). Those abandoning him did not diminish his right to say what he said. It just means he will have fewer champions.

Now Sterling is more complicated as he is a more complicated man. He is both a champion of minorities and someone who has been fined for discrimination in housing. He is someone who has befriended African-Americans in some significant relationships, including a lover, and yet said foul things about individuals on his team and of course the recorded phone call. He was known as a horrible person for years, you can find articles dating back 10 years about his racist views and yet it was not as cut and dried as now. So people ostracizing him and challenging his fitness to own an NBA franchise may seem too little too late, it is not a violation of his free speech. It is however a response to it. The NBA is a partnership and the NBA can do what they want with him as a partner. If they force a sale of the team he will collect about $500 million on a $15 million investment. He will die a billionaire regardless of what happens, and he can still have his complex and twisted views, but the NBA has the right to say he can't play in their sandbox and that is not a violation of his free speech.

Speech comes with consequences. Be it business men, elected officials, clergy or the guy or sweeps the school. A CEO with an opinion about gays that flies in the face of most of their customers will be fired, an elected official who calls for the death of a fellow member of Congress could be sanctioned and in a perfect world lose in the next election, a clergy person who openly defies a tenet of their faith could be let go by their congregation or in some cases defrocked by the hierarchy and the janitor in a school who used school emails to promote a position on legalizing drugs can be fired. All of those people are exercising the freedom of thought and speech and all suffer natural consequences for it.

There will always be consequences for speech in a free society because the same freedom that allows you to say something is the one that allows me to react to it. It isn't thought police, it is society setting a public standard.

If Sterling or Bundy who I both find offensive were to be arrested for their words I would fight hard to make sure they are released. But until then they have the right to think and say what they will, and we all have the right to hold them accountable.

Well, there's the usual problem where the majority are completely unaware of (or unwilling to concede) the distinction between racism and racial prejudice. Further, being moralistic, rights are interpretative, like it or not. As such, the most amicable settlement will be a majority vote. Personally, I'm completely comfortable with Western society's consensus of racism as being undesirable and counterproductive.

That said, I'm equally cognizant that freedom of speech is susceptible to corruption as a vehicle of tyranny. If we define freedom in too literal terms, it begins to contradict itself as being receptive of even the most divisive and destructive ideals.

sawyerloggingon said:

All this media blitz on Bundy and The basketball guy has me wondering if we now have thought police in this country. I'm not racist myself but I don't see what the big deal is if you are. We have laws to protect people from racism so your opinion should be a right and you should not be punished for what you believe. IMO firing someone for being a racist is anti American and flies in the face of free speech.

Click to expand...

Yes, being a racist is a Right. Has to do with freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of expression all allow it.

However there are consequences to voicing an unpopular belief.

sawyerloggingon said:

All this media blitz on Bundy and The basketball guy has me wondering if we now have thought police in this country. I'm not racist myself but I don't see what the big deal is if you are. We have laws to protect people from racism so your opinion should be a right and you should not be punished for what you believe. IMO firing someone for being a racist is anti American and flies in the face of free speech.

Click to expand...

Yes, being an asshole is a right. Suffering no social or business consequences for being an asshole is not.

Or, as this amusing cartoon observes...

sawyerloggingon said:

All this media blitz on Bundy and The basketball guy has me wondering if we now have thought police in this country. I'm not racist myself but I don't see what the big deal is if you are. We have laws to protect people from racism so your opinion should be a right and you should not be punished for what you believe. IMO firing someone for being a racist is anti American and flies in the face of free speech.

Click to expand...

Of course you have an unalienable right to be racist just as you have a right to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or believe bacon is good for you or believe there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And I agree that firing somebody for what he/she believes, when it affects his/her job in no way, is un-American and just plain wrong.

Liberty allows us all to be who and what we are. It does not allow us to require others to be who and what we want them or expect them to be or else we will do what we can to punish or hurt or destroy them. Too many people do not seem to be able to grasp that simple concept.

mak2 said:

I think I have mention how I was raised before so I wont bore you again. Lets just say until I went into the Marine Corps I probably did not know any black person on a first name basis. By the time I had been in the Corps about a year I realized I had been lied to my whole life, they and us were just alike. Being a racist requires self imposed ignorance and constant cofirmation bias, kinda like seeing a black guy sitting on his porch and assuming he is a lazy bumb on welfare and seeing a white guy sitting on his porch drinking a beer and assuming he just got home from work. I think one must actively maintain ones racist (ness).

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. My experience was very similar in that I did not meet a black person in real life until I was 11-years old. Growing up in the 1960s, my childhood experience with black people was limited to what I saw on TV. It was a tumultuous time, what with Vietnam and the Civil Rights Era, and at one point, I probably thought most black people were involved in riots & demonstrations, and when you grew up, you went to Vietnam and served with a lot of black guys. TV is very powerful. My parents were not racist, but I cannot say the same for the neighborhood I grew up in. Like you however, it is the military where I found out all the scuttlebutt was for nothing. It took all of about 4-days to figure it out when I met the guy who would become our recruit/trainee platoon leader.

It's getting close to 40-years since I first met him, and I still remember how much he meant to us as a leader. He had already been in the military and had more salad on his chest than any member of the staff. He influenced me so much, that I attempted to emulate many of his ways when in a leadership position in my life. He changed any long held stereotypes about race I may have held. Too bad I never measured up.