HeaterCuse22
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,094
- Like
- 2,642
Also the technology that exists today has changed the way, in my opinion, that people must conduct themselves in public or private.
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, and I don't and never did owe you an apology. Never. You're the one who took my general statement personally.let me walk you through this:
you ripped the "entire thread"
I took offense at your characterization
you then implied that you weren't talking to me, but you didn't come right out and say it
the thread further degenerated after that.
you could have simply replied "sorry, moqui, I wasn't implying these terrible things about you"
probably because really you were, but you don't have the sack to step up and own it
but I'm not going to waste any more thread time on this sub-issue. it's petty and personal, we should take it to PM
ConciseThis entire thread makes me sad.
Wow.
"He's been allowed to get away with this crap for years so why shouldn't he be able to get away with it now" is the impression being given by some.
He's a scumbag, and just because he has only just now been called out and punished for it doesn't make it any less just.
Don't give me the freedom of speech crap either.
I have a HUGE problem with what Mozilla did. This was a political contribution, and it is squelching political speech (even though it is a private action, it should be illegal.)
I have NO problem with what the NBA did. (By the way, the chick should be prosecuted for making the tape). This is a private group that is kicking out an a*!hole. He will now make about $1 Billion.
As long a neither one involves governmental repercussions, both actions are fully lawful.
Speech is rarely free. It has consequences.
It's a two-edged sword in the non-governmental sphere.
Sure, someone should be able to excercise the freedom to support whatever political or social causes he believes in.
On the other hand, partners and employers should have the freedom NOT to employ or be involved with someone whose beliefs they find odious.
And hypocrisy?
How about the NBA's?
Owner Sterling's hateful speech must be cut out.
But (ex) owner Jay-Z's is permissable.
As far as I know, no one ever asked David Stern why lyrics like this for an NBA owner to say (and shout to the public):
(Excerpts from Jay'Z's Big Pimpin')
"You know I - thug em, -k em (women), love em, leave em
Cause I don't --in need em...
I'm a pimp in every sense of the word, b--ch
Better trust than believe em...
I got no patience
And I hate waitin..
Hoe get yo' ass in
And let's RI-I-I-I-I-IDE.. check em out now..."
What a lyricist!
And this is one of his tamer songs.
They were all ok with the NBA.
Triple like this.The NBA is a business institution. Its previous leadership allowed for Sterling to stay in the league without taking action against documented racism. It comes along again and he gets the boot. Hindsight adds to the story but it does not make Silver's decision wrong.
Ultimately he has the right to do what is in the best interest of the league. In this case that is what he is doing. What Sterling said and has done in the past is beyond awful. Moral objections aside, this is as much a business decision as anything. If he doesn't ban him and simply move on then this drags out with some serious questions for the entire Clippers organization who would be at the mercy of one individual changing the game due to his views.
You have to widen the horizon a bit and see how difficult things would be if he wasn't banned. It was a damn good decision and a smart one. Now if he goes and does it for something truly petty and therefore begins abusing his power then that is another matter. So far Silver is doing a good job. He already has rid the league of someone long needing a kick in the ass.
Umm...because he didn't spew hate for an entire race maybe?Speech is rarely free. It has consequences.
It's a two-edged sword in the non-governmental sphere.
Sure, someone should be able to excercise the freedom to support whatever political or social causes he believes in.
On the other hand, partners and employers should have the freedom NOT to employ or be involved with someone whose beliefs they find odious.
And hypocrisy?
How about the NBA's?
Owner Sterling's hateful speech must be cut out.
But (ex) owner Jay-Z's is permissable.
As far as I know, no one ever asked David Stern why lyrics like this for an NBA owner to say (and shout to the public):
(Excerpts from Jay'Z's Big Pimpin')
"You know I - thug em, -k em (women), love em, leave em
Cause I don't --in need em...
I'm a pimp in every sense of the word, b--ch
Better trust than believe em...
I got no patience
And I hate waitin..
Hoe get yo' ass in
And let's RI-I-I-I-I-IDE.. check em out now..."
What a lyricist!
And this is one of his tamer songs.
They were all ok with the NBA.
or was like a 2% owner but isn't an owner at all anymore?Umm...because he didn't spew hate for an entire race maybe?
ugh. really dude, on the basketball board? there are MANY other places for you to engage in thiswho shall be the next target of the Great Tolerance Campaign of 2014? Nominations, please.
- Brendan Eich, founder and ex CEO of Mozilla, forced out of the company that he founded because he supported a political cause that some found offensive,
- Donald Sterling, forcibly divested of his property for saying something patently offensive
orangefan13 said:Its a democracy. People can always hide behind their culture and their social groups - poor or rich-.
As long as people aren't forced out of their culture, there will always be predjudice and its more inmaturity then a crime. Inmaturity by human beings, No it couldn't be, when did this happen lets deport em all.
Personally I think he should go spout homophobic crap at work and complain about freedom of speech when he's fired.Do you think that people should face consequences for the things we do that embarrass our employers or business partners? Or do you believe that businesses should be forced to maintain relationships with the people that hurt their bottom lines due to their embarrassing words?
Do you think that people should face consequences for the things we do that embarrass our employers or business partners? Or do you believe that businesses should be forced to maintain relationships with the people that hurt their bottom lines due to their embarrassing words?
moqui said:what was explicit and hateful about Brendan Eich? you might disagree with him, but its just a disagreement, and it is not making up for 225 years. it's just getting a pound of flesh.
Are you really comparing a guy who owns a team with a guy that at one time owned 1%? The guy who owned 1% had no control over the team. And he doesn't even own the 1% now.Speech is rarely free. It has consequences.
It's a two-edged sword in the non-governmental sphere.
Sure, someone should be able to excercise the freedom to support whatever political or social causes he believes in.
On the other hand, partners and employers should have the freedom NOT to employ or be involved with someone whose beliefs they find odious.
And hypocrisy?
How about the NBA's?
Owner Sterling's hateful speech must be cut out.
But (ex) owner Jay-Z's is permissable.
As far as I know, no one ever asked David Stern why lyrics like this for an NBA owner to say (and shout to the public):
(Excerpts from Jay'Z's Big Pimpin')
"You know I - thug em, -k em (women), love em, leave em
Cause I don't --in need em...
I'm a pimp in every sense of the word, b--ch
Better trust than believe em...
I got no patience
And I hate waitin..
Hoe get yo' ass in
And let's RI-I-I-I-I-IDE.. check em out now..."
What a lyricist!
And this is one of his tamer songs.
They were all ok with the NBA.
This is along the lines of what dasher said, but the players we have had who have committed these transgressions (and who here actually likes DeShaun, or Fab, or anyone else who has had these scenarios come up?) don't make millions off of the same people they so openly hate.I just wonder how many people that are so outraged by Sterling's quotes (which with him is about as surprising as the sunrise) cheered on so many of our ballplayers that were in the least documented abusive towards women.
It's the selective pile on that's a big bothersome for me.
Bayside44 said:I just wonder how many people that are so outraged by Sterling's quotes (which with him is about as surprising as the sunrise) cheered on so many of our ballplayers that were in the least documented abusive towards women.
It's the selective pile on that's a big bothersome for me.
Don't forget the treatment Jeremy Lin got by many players and fans.[/quote]I just wonder how many people that are so outraged by Sterling's quotes (which with him is about as surprising as the sunrise) cheered on so many of our ballplayers that were in the least documented abusive towards women.
It's the selective pile on that's a big bothersome for me.
Why do people tape conversations without the other party knowing? Why tape your spouse? How many of these players use women like toilet paper or commit actual crimes yet are praised due to having athletic talent? How many of today.s NBA players have never used hate words in their vocabulary?
Another thing - DeShaun punches a girl, that's the extent of how his actions can impact her.I just wonder how many people that are so outraged by Sterling's quotes (which with him is about as surprising as the sunrise) cheered on so many of our ballplayers that were in the least documented abusive towards women.
It's the selective pile on that's a big bothersome for me.
jekelish said:Another thing - DeShaun punches a girl, that's the extent of how his actions can impact her. Donald Sterling can actually influence a person's entire life after stating his hate for them. Just a slight difference.