• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Sterling's punishment too much? [W:359]

Was the punishment too harsh?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 60.2%
  • No

    Votes: 37 39.8%

  • Total voters
    93
The funny thing is that everyone cares what blacks think, but you have a franchise with a blatant pejorative to Native Americans in the name and it's generally glazed over.

Apparently blacks have better PR people than Indians. Seems the Cherokee nation needs a Sharpton.

Don't anger Chief Bitches About Crap.

I dunno if that's been "glazed over." The Redskins name has caused quite a kerfuffle.
 
I don't like his racist remarks, but it looks like the leftwing thought-nazis won out again. Sieg Heil!!! Sieg Heil!! Let's round up the haters and shoot them all, throw them in gas chambers and them cook them in ovens. What's next, loyality oaths? Let's just become the USSR we destroyed and turn each other in to the Fatherland. Stupid ****s.

:roll:

Yes, you know those left-wing thought Nazis ... billionaire NBA owners. Lily-livered libby lib libtards, the lot of them.

Congratulations on the most hamfisted invoking of Godwin's law I've seen in a while.
 
It's overkill. The guy was speaking in private. I'd be willing to hazard that 99% of us have said dopey sh*t in private at one time or another that if put under a public microscope would similarly get us in trouble. Our society is completely screwed if this is now what normal is.

He's an idiot but his ex is evil. If the recording really was illegally made she should be prosecuted.
 
Sterling was someone in a position of power, in a profession that is dominated by African-Americans.

So? He didn't harm them in any way, unless someone can prove otherwise. In fact, the opposite is true. He probably employed more blacks than 99.9999% of Americans. He donated tons of money to the NAACP. He is, in fact, the antithesis of person who is racist towards black people.

Now "racism" has extended beyond the workplace and public venues to include people's bedrooms, which, I thought, were supposed to be off-limits. Privacy, and all that.

The stench of hypocrisy can be smelled in other continents.
 
I dunno if that's been "glazed over." The Redskins name has caused quite a kerfuffle.

Snyder gets some boos and jeers for having a football team with the Native American equivalent of "nigger" in it. Sterling says to his girlfriend, supposedly privately, that he wants her to clear her Instagram account of black people pics and not bring them to Staples, and he pretty much gets ostracized from society as a whole, and a business he owns (for now).

Doesn't quite seem proportional to me. You?
 
No.

Sterling's hateful actions posed a real risk of inflicting significant, lasting, and costly damage to the NBA's global brand. Had the Commissioner not exercised decisive leadership, the NBA could have found itself in a position of a loss of talent in the longer-term, loss of advertisers, reduced TV ratings/reduced TV contract, and smaller global profile. Half-measures would have resulted in the NBA's sustaining a "slow bleed." The corporate literature is filled with accounts where corporations failed to act decisively in the face of scandals or controversies and wound up with lasting and significant reductions in the brand reputations and market capitalization.
 
Snyder gets some boos and jeers for having a football team with the Native American equivalent of "nigger" in it. Sterling says to his girlfriend, supposedly privately, that he wants her to clear her Instagram account of black people pics and not bring them to Staples, and he pretty much gets ostracized from society as a whole, and a business he owns (for now).

Doesn't quite seem proportional to me. You?

I never said it did. Adam Silver dropped a hammer that Roger Goodell either can't or won't drop. All I was saying is that the "Redskins" controversy hasn't been ignored, and isn't going away. Snyder's gotten more than "boos and jeers."

Part of the reason Snyder isn't overtly punished for his team's name the way Sterling was for his comments is because the team was already the "Redskins" when he bought it.
 
I never said it did. Adam Silver dropped a hammer that Roger Goodell either can't or won't drop. All I was saying is that the "Redskins" controversy hasn't been ignored, and isn't going away. Snyder's gotten more than "boos and jeers."

Part of the reason Snyder isn't overtly punished for his team's name the way Sterling was for his comments is because the team was already the "Redskins" when he bought it.

ERA wasn't around when Sterling was born. Are we grandfathering (no pun intended) racism now?
 
So? He didn't harm them in any way, unless someone can prove otherwise. In fact, the opposite is true. He probably employed more blacks than 99.9999% of Americans. He donated tons of money to the NAACP. He is, in fact, the antithesis of person who is racist towards black people.

Now "racism" has extended beyond the workplace and public venues to include people's bedrooms, which, I thought, were supposed to be off-limits. Privacy, and all that.

The stench of hypocrisy can be smelled in other continents.

So, what if I was an employee, and I was invited into my employers residence (place of privacy), and he told me that he/she hates black people? But, I happened to record it. Would I be unjustified in releasing the recording? Or does privacy in one's own residence only apply to one's significant other?
 
ERA wasn't around when Sterling was born. Are we grandfathering (no pun intended) racism now?

ERA? The Equal Rights Amendment? It's not around now. It never passed.

I'm not making excuses for Snyder. Read what I posted.
 
No doubt he will be forced to sell at bargain basement prices.

Then Seattle can have a team again at a low price.
 
Then Seattle can have a team again at a low price.

While I kinda like the Thunder, man, Seattle got hosed in that deal when they lost the Sonics.
 
If he sells I hope the Seattle group buys them.

I don't think it's likely the NBA lets the Clippers move to Seattle if they weren't going to let Sacramento.
 
So, what if I was an employee, and I was invited into my employers residence (place of privacy), and he told me that he/she hates black people? But, I happened to record it. Would I be unjustified in releasing the recording? Or does privacy in one's own residence only apply to one's significant other?

I thought privacy was something that the Liberals valued. Now you're saying it's not to be valued? Whatever happened to "stay out of my bedroom"?

Or whatever happened to people being free to like and dislike whomever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

But go ahead, tell me. You like everybody, right?
 
ERA? The Equal Rights Amendment? It's not around now. It never passed.

I'm not making excuses for Snyder. Read what I posted.

Meant to be CRA, not ERA. My bad.

I know you're not, but I'm saying that racism is very subjective here, and this was quite damaging for somewhat innocuous comments made privately.
 
No.

Sterling's hateful actions posed a real risk of inflicting significant, lasting, and costly damage to the NBA's global brand. Had the Commissioner not exercised decisive leadership, the NBA could have found itself in a position of a loss of talent in the longer-term, loss of advertisers, reduced TV ratings/reduced TV contract, and smaller global profile. Half-measures would have resulted in the NBA's sustaining a "slow bleed." The corporate literature is filled with accounts where corporations failed to act decisively in the face of scandals or controversies and wound up with lasting and significant reductions in the brand reputations and market capitalization.

So it's okay to dislike people, as long as no businesses are involved. Is that right?
 
I don't think we should have to constantly be afraid of what we say in private. I think that this is too much. A public statement is one thing, support of a candidate or advocating a policy is another. Those have effects on other people and should incur whatever ire those people have. But I don't think anyone should ever have to "watch what they say" in private.
 
I don't think we should have to constantly be afraid of what we say in private. I think that this is too much. A public statement is one thing, support of a candidate or advocating a policy is another. Those have effects on other people and should incur whatever ire those people have. But I don't think anyone should ever have to "watch what they say" in private.

Every once in a while a short, to the point and well written post pops up on here that I wish I had written first. Thank you for summing it up for me so nicely. Well said.
 
I don't think we should have to constantly be afraid of what we say in private. I think that this is too much. A public statement is one thing, support of a candidate or advocating a policy is another. Those have effects on other people and should incur whatever ire those people have. But I don't think anyone should ever have to "watch what they say" in private.

They shouldn't have to watch what they say in private, and the girl should be prosecuted for secretly taping their conversation. However, I don't really have a problem with the NBA punishing Sterling, because fair or not, their business was being hurt by his comments.
 
Also to take into consideration:

He spoke these words on his private property
He broke no actual laws
His girlfriend broke the law by recording him without his knowledge

I think it's way too harsh, especially considering the points you've noted. While I certainly don't condone his racist statements, he has a right to say whatever in private, and in no way, shape or form, should he pay the price for words that are not ment to be public.
 
I don't think it's likely the NBA lets the Clippers move to Seattle if they weren't going to let Sacramento.

New commissioner
 
I don't think we should have to constantly be afraid of what we say in private. I think that this is too much. A public statement is one thing, support of a candidate or advocating a policy is another. Those have effects on other people and should incur whatever ire those people have. But I don't think anyone should ever have to "watch what they say" in private.

At the risk of "blaming the victim," the fact that he trusted this gold digger enough to think she might not do something skeevy like this shows remarkable naivete. When you're rich like he is, there's always someone trying to take you down.
 
New commissioner

True at least Stern, who seemed to hate Seattle with a burning passion, is no longer commissioner. But the Clippers have top 10 attendance and the NBA isn't going to want to take the PR hit that comes with punishing a fan base by letting their team move because of an owner's inflammatory comments.
 
New commissioner

That's the other thing that nobody seems to take into account, regarding the NBA's sudden interest in Sterling's bigotry and comparing this response to past transgressions by Sterling and many, many others. Adam Silver just took over as commissioner in Februrary. New administration, and he's making a statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom