• 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
tres borrachos said:
Tres Borrachos is a race horse. I love The Spa and go for a few days every August.

Yes, this thread needed a breather. It was fun talking to you Kobie. Have a good one - and GO RANGERS!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'll take the Blueshirts over the execrable Flyers. Good chat.
 
Smartmouthwoman said:
I like the part where the NBA is' urging' him to sell the team.

What if he refuses? Boycotting the team would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

If I was him... I'd sell, take the huge profit he's bound to make and tell the NBA to kiss his lily white ass.

But thats just me.

;)
Click to expand...

The profit won't be as much as expected. The NBA colluded and Sterling should be able to file an antitrust against them. I hope he takes the NBA to the cleaners.
 
Gipper said:
The profit won't be as much as expected. The NBA colluded and Sterling should be able to file an antitrust against them. I hope he takes the NBA to the cleaners.
Click to expand...
In fact, if Sterling decided to show up at some games and watch them, how will that all play out? Who will arrest him and how will that work out? This was the discussion on one of my morning Sports Talk shows. This "ban" will only be successful in as far as how much Sterling chooses to heed it. The forcing him to sell the team is far from a certainty and given that Sterling has sued each of his ex-girlfriends for the last few decades, I doubt he will treat the NBA much differently. ;)
 
Filthy McNasty said:
In fact, if Sterling decided to show up at some games and watch them, how will that all play out? Who will arrest him and how will that work out? This was the discussion on one of my morning Sports Talk shows. This "ban" will only be successful in as far as how much Sterling chooses to heed it. The forcing him to sell the team is far from a certainty and given that Sterling has sued each of his ex-girlfriends for the last few decades, I doubt he will treat the NBA much differently. ;)
Click to expand...

His face is all over. I doubt he can sneak into a game. If he could, he'd be amongst the common men. God forbid if any of them discover who he is.

They've already made him sell, IMO. Professional sports franchise ownership is more about ego than profit. He wants to see "his product", and when that's taken from him, the appeal of ownership is gone.
 
Gipper said:
His face is all over. I doubt he can sneak into a game. If he could, he'd be amongst the common men. God forbid if any of them discover who he is.

They've already made him sell, IMO. Professional sports franchise ownership is more about ego than profit. He wants to see "his product", and when that's taken from him, the appeal of ownership is gone.
Click to expand...
Ah but based upon his ego and past court cases with his ex girlfriends (usually to get back money he had given them) why would he view the NBA any different? You are probably right of course, but I would not be surprised to see portions of this ban (the sale) end up in court. Plus in the admittedly wild speculation department, if Sterling did decide to show up at a game, I doubt he would do so in disguise and I doubt that the arena would lynch him, he would not be sitting in the common men's seating ya know. Again, the ban is only as effective as this ass chooses to heed it. It made for an interesting talk on the drive his morning. ;)
 
opendebate said:
This implies there was no genuine outrage. Is that what you think?

Expressing an opinion is not what he did. He expressed contempt for people based on their ethnicity. When you are a person that has authority and control over others that kind of bigotry matters. Your "opinion" can then actively harm others.
Click to expand...

First you say 'expressing an opinion is not what he did', then you say 'your opinion can then actively harm others', which one is it?

I think what he said was contemptible and should have 'some' consequences. People can react, condemn and show their disapproval in a legal manner.

But it was an expression of his opinion on a matter, not active discrimination. As distasteful as words of racism and bigotry are, if you make them out of bounds and you start censoring words and opinions, the list will grow and grow. There's a reason they don't limit free speech, because trying to use thought control never works out well. Naturally, you can't scream 'bomb' in an airport, disturb the peace or do other verbal escapades that lead to harmful action but that is enough.
 
Gipper said:
For his racist comments caught on tape, Clippers owner Donald Sterling recently had this ruling put on him by NBA commissioner Adam Silver:

$2.5M fine (maximum allowed in by-laws)
Lifetime ban from NBA games
Lifetime ban from NBA function
Zero access to facilities during Clippers games and practices
Urging by the BoD to owners for forced divestiture of ownership



Was the hammer too great, or spot on?

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
Click to expand...

Let's look at it like this. What if the NBA did nothing? How are the people that play for Sterling supposed to feel?

I personally don't like how we have elevated athletics to such a high pedestal, but that's the way it is. That being the case, what kind of example does that set?
 
Filthy McNasty said:
Ah but based upon his ego and past court cases with his ex girlfriends (usually to get back money he had given them) why would he view the NBA any different? You are probably right of course, but I would not be surprised to see portions of this ban (the sale) end up in court. Plus in the admittedly wild speculation department, if Sterling did decide to show up at a game, I doubt he would do so in disguise and I doubt that the arena would lynch him, he would not be sitting in the common men's seating ya know. Again, the ban is only as effective as this ass chooses to heed it. It made for an interesting talk on the drive his morning. ;)
Click to expand...

I think you have more faith in the common man than I do. Hell, I'm not entirely sure he could make it to his seat unscathed if he was not disguised. He may not have the hell beaten out of him, but shoutdowns and spittle could be a reality.

Sterling ending up as a plaintiff in court over this isn't a speculation - it's an eventuality. It's not if, but when.
 
Gipper said:
For his racist comments caught on tape, Clippers owner Donald Sterling recently had this ruling put on him by NBA commissioner Adam Silver:

$2.5M fine (maximum allowed in by-laws)
Lifetime ban from NBA games
Lifetime ban from NBA function
Zero access to facilities during Clippers games and practices
Urging by the BoD to owners for forced divestiture of ownership



Was the hammer too great, or spot on?

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
Click to expand...

He was punished by a private association which lives or dies on its image. The steps they took were necessary to secure their endorsements, staff, and audience. I pass no judgement. I also don't care.
 
MildSteel said:
Let's look at it like this. What if the NBA did nothing? How are the people that play for Sterling supposed to feel?
Click to expand...

Like every other Joe who works a job to put food on the table - except at 1000x the salary.

I personally don't like how we have elevated athletics to such a high pedestal, but that's the way it is. That being the case, what kind of example does that set?
Click to expand...

Where does it end? As I said, this could create a slippery slope. What if an owner is caught screwing a 14 year old girl (in a state where 14 is consent age), or does a line of coke at a high-end party? Those are all morality failings. And I bet that nothing else would warrant this kind of punishment.

We have to treat the black population like they're made of glass, like they're above reproach, and like they have a voice that transcends a demographic making up approximately 12% of the US population.

Pissing off white people does nothing but give a black racist from Alabama a halftime show on TNT.
 
The NBA is a private entity. It was their right to fire and ban him to improve their image. That being said, I would not have done it personally. I do feel it was a bit harsh.
 
:stooges
Gipper said:
I think you have more faith in the common man than I do. Hell, I'm not entirely sure he could make it to his seat unscathed if he was not disguised. He may not have the hell beaten out of him, but shoutdowns and spittle could be a reality.

Sterling ending up as a plaintiff in court over this isn't a speculation - it's an eventuality. It's not if, but when.
Click to expand...
This is a bit off topic, but where do you live that the common man can afford tickets to a NBA game? :stooges
 
Gipper said:
Like every other Joe who works a job to put food on the table - except at 1000x the salary.
Click to expand...

So you don't have a problem with people working for people who are racists? What if he didn't say it over the phone, but was talking to his girl in front of the players? What if the guy just started addressing the players directly as n*g*ers? Would you have a problem with any of that?


Gipper said:
Where does it end? As I said, this could create a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

That's my question to you. Is there a limit, in your mind, to the racist language that should be tolerated? Or should people be allowed to freely use racist language as they desire?

Gipper said:
We have to treat the black population like they're made of glass, like they're above reproach, and like they have a voice that transcends a demographic making up approximately 12% of the US population.

Pissing off white people does nothing but give a black racist from Alabama a halftime show on TNT.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you are talking about. If it was a black owner that was talking to his girlfriend about whites, the same should apply.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
:stooges
This is a bit off topic, but where do you live that the common man can afford tickets to a NBA game? :stooges
Click to expand...

I was born and raised in Michigan, and I've been to the Palace multiple times. No playoff games though. Now those can get a tad pricey.
 
Gipper said:
For his racist comments caught on tape, Clippers owner Donald Sterling recently had this ruling put on him by NBA commissioner Adam Silver:

$2.5M fine (maximum allowed in by-laws)
Lifetime ban from NBA games
Lifetime ban from NBA function
Zero access to facilities during Clippers games and practices
Urging by the BoD to owners for forced divestiture of ownership



Was the hammer too great, or spot on?

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
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that he made racist comments but I have no clue what he said. He could have said, "Black people play good basketball" or he could have said, "We should kill and hang.... so on and so forth".

An accusation that someone made a racist comment covers a lot of ground. I guess I am going to have dig a little deeper and found out what he said before I vote in this poll.

From a financial or business perspective I would say, "no". The NBA has a brand to protect. This is kinda similar to a Mcdonald's franchise owner making comments like this. It would hurt the whole Mcdonald's brand.
 
MildSteel said:
So you don't have a problem with people working for people who are racists? What if he didn't say it over the phone, but was talking to his girl in front of the players? What if the guy just started addressing the players directly as n*g*ers? Would you have a problem with any of that?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with anyone as long as it's not conscription or slavery. If you work for an employer and receive compensation in return, that's all that matters. If you don't like him, you can quit.

That's my question to you. Is there a limit, in your mind, to the racist language that should be tolerated? Or should people be allowed to freely use racist language as they desire?
Click to expand...

That's subjective. If even a small amount is too much for you, then quit.

I don't know what you are talking about. If it was a black owner that was talking to his girlfriend about whites, the same should apply.
Click to expand...

You're right. It "should".
 
Gipper said:
I don't have a problem with anyone as long as it's not conscription or slavery. If you work for an employer and receive compensation in return, that's all that matters. If you don't like him, you can quit.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. So you don't have a problem with people being psychologically abused at work?


Gipper said:
That's subjective. If even a small amount is too much for you, then quit.
Click to expand...

Let's suppose we allow it, and the practice became pervasive such that practically everywhere you went to work was like that. You don't have a problem with people being psychologically abused, are treated as if they are low class at work?
 
MildSteel said:
That's interesting. So you don't have a problem with people being psychologically abused at work?
Click to expand...

Psychologically abused. Ha. "Don't bring black people to my games" isn't emotionally crippling unless you're weak-willed. If that drives you over the edge, quit.

Let's suppose we allow it, and the practice became pervasive such that practically everywhere you went to work was like that. You don't have a problem with people being psychologically abused, are treated as if they are low class at work?
Click to expand...

Okay, you are aware of the fact that this was a PRIVATE conversation made IN HIS HOME, right? You're making it sound like he went to the end of the bench with a whip at practices shouting, "work harder, spook".
 
Gipper said:
Psychologically abused. Ha. "Don't bring black people to my games" isn't emotionally crippling unless you're weak-willed. If that drives you over the edge, quit.

Okay, you are aware of the fact that this was a PRIVATE conversation made IN HIS HOME, right? You're making it sound like he went to the end of the bench with a whip at practices shouting, "work harder, spook".
Click to expand...

What I'm trying to do is see is whether you think there should be any limits on the sort of racist language that an employer is allowed to say to an employee. It appears that you think it's fine that an employer use racist language against an employee as long as the employee is being paid. If that's the case, that is disturbing.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Well I don't think they can just outright pull his ownership rights because from what Mark Cuban was saying since it doesn't involve gambling then that power isn't given to the League. However, I think Silver did the next best thing in his mind, which is why there was the ban.
Click to expand...

When push comes to shove Cuban will fall into line with his club. We will see what the vote is.
 
MildSteel said:
What I'm trying to do is see is whether you think there should be any limits on the sort of racist language that an employer is allowed to say to an employee. It appears that you think it's fine that an employer use racist language against an employee as long as the employee is being paid. If that's the case, that is disturbing.
Click to expand...

HE DIDN'T SAY IT TO AN EMPLOYEE!

Dammit, is this penetrating?
 
Gipper said:
HE DIDN'T SAY IT TO AN EMPLOYEE!

Dammit, is this penetrating?
Click to expand...

I'm asking how do you feel. Do you feel that employers should be able to make racist comments to workers simply because they are paying them?
 
grip said:
First you say 'expressing an opinion is not what he did', then you say 'your opinion can then actively harm others', which one is it?

I think what he said was contemptible and should have 'some' consequences. People can react, condemn and show their disapproval in a legal manner.

But it was an expression of his opinion on a matter, not active discrimination. As distasteful as words of racism and bigotry are, if you make them out of bounds and you start censoring words and opinions, the list will grow and grow. There's a reason they don't limit free speech, because trying to use thought control never works out well. Naturally, you can't scream 'bomb' in an airport, disturb the peace or do other verbal escapades that lead to harmful action but that is enough.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was late I didn't read that through.

The bottom line here, it's my understanding, is he violated the bylaws of the league so there are legal grounds. Those kinds of guidelines for behavior were incorporated into the league bylaws for a reason. It seems you just don't think those reasons are good enough and my guess is reason that you don't think those reasons are good enough is because you've never been a victim of racism. Not in an overt way that actually interferes in your life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom