Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Apr '14 19:37 / 1 edit
    Oh boy, someone we all love to hate.

    He is rich!! (strike one)

    He cheats on his wife! (strike two)

    He is a racist!! (strike three!!)

    He's out.

    Now that we all feel a little better, a question must be asked. Should racism be outlawed? Certainly it is outlawed in the context of discrimination, but should racism in general be outlawed or are we satisfied with simply destroying peoples reputations and making them outcasts in society?
  2. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Apr '14 19:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    Oh boy, someone we all love to hate.

    He is rich!! (strike one)

    He cheats on his wife! (strike two)

    He is a racist!! (strike three!!)

    He's out.

    Now that we all feel a little better, a question must be asked. Should racism be outlawed? Certainly it is outlawed in the context of discrimination, but should racism in general be outlawed or are we satisfied with simply destroying peoples reputations and making them outcasts in society?
    This is typical hyperbole. Is this what you have in mind? (I see this quite often at the Lady Lever Art Gallery. It has never made me think of Donald Sterling I must say.)
    http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/picture-of-month/showlarge.aspx?id=283

    He is just outcast from the NBA surely in a decision that the NBA is quite properly entitled to make?
    The sanctions against Sterling, which appeared to be the most punitive available to the NBA, were greeted with jubilation by prominent players, some of whom had characterised the issue as a defining moment for the league, 70% of whose players are black but whose team owners are overwhelmingly white.
    I imagine he will continue to enjoy his fortune from real estate and do very nicely in other ways. He will find his own company I am sure and stick with people who are not nauseated by his stinking attitudes - there are plenty I am sure. So he is not a social outcast - just a stinking racist that decent people prefer not to have in the NBA.
  3. 30 Apr '14 19:54
    Originally posted by finnegan
    This is typical hyperbole. Is this what you have in mind? (I see this quite often at the Lady Lever Art Gallery. It has never made me think of Donald Sterling I must say.)
    http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/picture-of-month/showlarge.aspx?id=283

    He is just outcast from the NBA surely in a decision that the NBA is quite properly entitled to make? [quo ...[text shortened]... not a social outcast - just a stinking racist that decent people prefer not to have in the NBA.
    If what you say is true, then he will not suffer in the least?

    Should this be allowed or should we make him suffer?
  4. 30 Apr '14 19:59
    Racism should most certainly not be outlawed - someone's thoughts do not directly harm others. However, publicly ridiculing people with moronic views is fine by me.
  5. 30 Apr '14 20:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Racism should most certainly not be outlawed - someone's thoughts do not directly harm others. However, publicly ridiculing people with moronic views is fine by me.
    Not harming others? The NBA is in a PR meltdown.

    How about this, if you are rich and it is proven you are a racist, then your taxes go up.

    Surely this is something you can get behind KN.
  6. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    30 Apr '14 20:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    If what you say is true, then he will not suffer in the least?

    Should this be allowed or should we make him suffer?
    I am not interested in his suffering. His personal interests are not at issue. I respect the desire of the NBA to ensure that its black players, who make up 70% of the total, and its black fans and supporters and their families, are respected and feel respected.
  7. 30 Apr '14 20:47
    Donald Sterling is a fool and his views are damaging to the NBA and should be condemned but there are far worse thing one can do than verbally express racist views. His actions (there was a time when he had a African American GM when only one other club did, he has an African American coach) should matter too.
  8. 30 Apr '14 20:59
    Isn't Sterling the victim here?
  9. 30 Apr '14 21:09
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Isn't Sterling the victim here?
    He may be the victim of an illegal taping but the NBA who tries to market their product to everyone, is the victim of his non-inclusive views.
  10. 30 Apr '14 22:03
    Originally posted by quackquack
    He may be the victim of an illegal taping but the NBA who tries to market their product to everyone, is the victim of his non-inclusive views.
    Yea I don't buy your argument that the NBA is a victim. People are not going to stop watching the NBA just because one of the owners is a racist.
  11. 30 Apr '14 22:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    Oh boy, someone we all love to hate.

    He is rich!! (strike one)

    He cheats on his wife! (strike two)

    He is a racist!! (strike three!!)

    He's out.

    Now that we all feel a little better, a question must be asked. Should racism be outlawed? Certainly it is outlawed in the context of discrimination, but should racism in general be outlawed or are we satisfied with simply destroying peoples reputations and making them outcasts in society?
    I'd just like to see everyone who wants to punish him quit buying tickets to any NBA game, or at the very least any Clipper game. The players who don't like him should either not give it their all or quit.

    He's a moron for trying to force his wife to not bring certain people to the games. He should have just made a new box for his enjoyment and let his wife have the old seats.
  12. 30 Apr '14 23:25 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Donald Sterling is a fool and his views are damaging to the NBA and should be condemned but there are far worse thing one can do than verbally express racist views. His actions (there was a time when he had a African American GM when only one other club did, he has an African American coach) should matter too.
    Elgin Baylor (who was one of the NBA's greatest players) was Donald
    Sterling's 'African American' vice president of basketball operations rather
    than his 'GM' (general manager) as claimed by Quackquack. Elgin Baylor
    was not happy by how he was treated by Donald Sterling, and they
    parted on extremely bad terms. Elgin Baylor accused Donald Sterling of
    wanting to run the Clippers as though it were a Southern plantation.

    In 2006 Elgin Baylor won the NBA Executive of the Year award (based
    upon voting by other NBA executives), so his peers recognized that he
    was doing his job well. In 2009, however, Elgin Baylor unsuccessfully
    sued Donald Sterling (the case was decided in 2011), claiming that he
    had been wrongfully terminated on account of discrimination against his
    age and race. Notwithstanding that legal verdict, Elgin Baylor seems to
    have a much higher reputation for honesty and integrity than Donald Sterling
    among the people who have spent their careers working in the NBA.

    While there's earlier evidence of his racist attitudes, I would note that
    Donald Sterling's evident racism has long been condoned for various reasons.
    Having apparently contributed a significant amount of money to the LA
    chapter of the NAACP (an old African-American civil rights organization),
    Donald Sterling received an award from that chapter of the NAACP.
    Indeed, until his most recent racist comments, Donald Sterling had been
    scheduled to receive another award from that chapter of the NAACP.

    In his recent comments, Donald Sterling (nee Tokowitz), who's Jewish,
    apparently attempted to justify his attitudes toward African Americans by
    saying that black people (apparently referring to Ethiopian Jews) were also
    badly treated in Israel (which he might believe is a model for human rights).
    It's true that Ethiopian Jews have been afflicted by significant racial prejudice
    in Israel, though Israeli Jewish racism is primarily directed against Arabs.
    While many American Jewish organizations have been quick to condemn
    any real or perceived anti-Semitic comments or opinions, I don't recall that
    any American Jewish organization has previously criticized Donald Sterling
    for his racist attitudes.

    By the way, the first non-white player in the NBA was Wataru Misaka, a
    US citizen of Japanese ancestry (and a US Army veteran), who briefly
    played for the New York Knicks in the 1947-48 season. The United States
    is not a *biracial* society, and some of the most blatant racism is experienced
    by people who are not African-Americans. Jeremy Lin, a current NBA player
    of Han Chinese ancestry (who was born and grew up in the USA), has spoken
    of being called explicit racist slurs many times during basketball games,
    including when he was playing for Harvard in the Ivy League (before crowds
    of supposedly well-educated students).
  13. 30 Apr '14 23:37
    Originally posted by whodey
    Oh boy, someone we all love to hate.

    He is rich!! (strike one)

    He cheats on his wife! (strike two)

    He is a racist!! (strike three!!)

    He's out.

    Now that we all feel a little better, a question must be asked. Should racism be outlawed? Certainly it is outlawed in the context of discrimination, but should racism in general be outlawed or are we satisfied with simply destroying peoples reputations and making them outcasts in society?
    Leaping to the defense of those who exercise their free speech rignts, means that you will defend those who demonstrated and spoke for legal measures to be taken to remove Sterling from the NBA.

    Leaping to the defense of people to go about their private business without government interference means you will defend the right of the NBA to enforce its legal contract provisions against violators, and the right of citizens who demand that they do this.

    And of course I leap to the defense of your right to say everything you say in your OP on this thread.

    Protecting legal rights means protecting the rights of people to perform legal actions that we disapprove of.
  14. 30 Apr '14 23:41
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Racism should most certainly not be outlawed - someone's thoughts do not directly harm others. However, publicly ridiculing people with moronic views is fine by me.
    'Racism should most certainly not be outlawed...'
    --KazetNagorra

    While it may be impracticable to outlaw holding racist beliefs, why would
    it be as impracticable to outlaw explicit racist behavior (such as the KKK
    burning a cross near a non-white person's home to intimidate him or her)?
    I note that Germany has outlawed even speech and symbols that seem to
    express pro-Nazi sympathies.

    "...someone's thoughts do not directly harm others."
    --KazetNagorra

    Someone's thoughts, when unchallenged, may lead to actions that directly
    harm others. If a member of the majority believes that people in a minority
    are subhuman and unfit to live in that society, then how much opportunity
    is needed before violent 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide begins? If a man
    believes that a woman near him in a pub must be 'asking for it' (sex) on
    account of her revealing attire, then how much opportunity is needed before
    he attempts to rape her?
  15. 01 May '14 00:11
    While I have no sympathy for Donald Sterling personally, I have to say that
    I am concerned by some of the popular reaction against him in the USA.

    First of all, the case of Donald Sterling shows that most Americans seem to
    find it easier to believe--or to pretend to believe--that American racism is
    the responsibility of only a few bad individual racists rather than a broad
    cultural pattern with deep historical roots and sociopolitical complexities.
    The 'easy' American 'solution' to racism is to identify, stigmatize, and
    demonize (sometimes hypocritically) a few of these individual racists, as
    though that's supposed to end racism. I believe that's far from enough.

    Second, the rapid harsh punishment of Donald Sterling does *not* prove,
    in my view, that there's 'zero tolerance' for *racism of any kind* in the USA.
    To be realistic, Donald Sterling was punished because he made offensive
    racist comments about a very politically powerful group, African Americans.
    If he had made the same comments about, say Laotian Americans (who
    have no political power or influence), then would there have been many
    serious objections? I doubt it. Would US President Obama have bothered
    to comment about Donald Sterling's (hypothetical) racist comments against
    Laotian Americans? No. Even if Donald Sterling had said that all Laotian
    Americans should be barred from attending LA Clipper games, I doubt this
    would have become a national, indeed an international, news story.
    So the practical lesson is this: If you have to make offensive racist comments,
    then be careful to pick on a group with little or no political power.

    With regard to Donald Sterling's freedom of speech being infringed, apart
    from legal or ethical considerations of recording his private conversations
    and leaking them, I would say that being a NBA owner is a privilege, not a
    right, and it comes with certain responsibilities. The NBA commissioner has
    long fined NBA players, coaches, and executives for public comments such
    as criticizing the referees. If that's acceptable, then the NBA commissioner
    can also fine Donald Sterling for making comments that harm the NBA's image.

    But Donald Sterling's offensive comments were not illegal, and he remains
    the legal owner of the LA Clippers. I am not certain that the NBA commissioner
    has enough authority to order Donald Sterling not to participate in running
    the business that he owns, and I expect Sterling to challenge that in court.

    Moreover, I believe that the NBA commissioner overreached (perhaps playing
    to the crowd) in barring Donald Sterling from attending any NBA game again.
    There's no requirement that every NBA spectator must be non-racist.
    Any racist who buys a ticket can attend a NBA game as long as one's not
    disruptive or a threat to public safety. So I don't have an objection to
    Donald Sterling attending NBA games as long as he avoids being disruptive
    by making racist comments during them.

    By the way, in a chess tournament I was once assigned to play someone
    with extreme right-wing racist views. I won the game and kept brief any
    conversation afterward.