[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Indeed. Lee is much more visible than Sterling.

Let's just settle this: You actually think what Lee did is worse than Sterling, even though one just watches the players and the other actually employs them?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

To discuss his racist comments in front of all the owners and league brass.

Well, he already seems to have passed up on opportunity with the Commish. As history and current events demonstrate, he's an unapologetic racist.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It would also be an excellent time to talk about ALL of the racism in the league and how to address it.

No it wouldn't, It'd be a great time to obfuscate why they're there: To decide whether to rescind Sterling's ownership of the franchise.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Interesting, I guess I take their positions more to heart than you, perhaps?

Without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's not deflection, it's called not turning a blind eye to important factors, here. Why are black cops arresting and "harassing" other young black men?

That's their job. I wouldn't be surprised if they're put in that position because they're black. But you're really derailing things here.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Indeed, you should, one of them is in the back office while the other is a spokesman, for God's sake. IOW, he's paid to run his mouth about how much he dislikes mixed race couples!

1. One was a spokesman in on commercial. The other is the current top of one of the league's 30 franchises.
2. Lee is not paid to run his mouth about mixed race couples. His comments and commercial are separate projects; They took place 20 years apart (AFAICT).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is getting a big lump sum really that different from a cause and effect perspective?

It looks worse if you continue paying someone, yes.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

One was a spokesman in on commercial. The other is the current top of one of the league's 30 franchises.

They're basically the same person!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The point is that conservatives share the goal of a post-racial society.

The goal? Many think we're already there (Chief Justice John Roberts among them).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Absolutely hammering the white racist while completely ignoring black racists is not a balanced or effective approach to accomplishing the goal of a post-racial society. It leads to resentment and can pose even more tension.

No, this leads to resentment and tension:


White people currently think they have it worse than blacks. i.e., persecution complex. Call me cynical, but I suspect that it hasn't even factored into peoples heads that since there are way more white people than black, there's going to be a lot more white racists getting called out than black (all things being equal).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It wasn't an argument, it was a point in fact. Privilege cannot be identified solely by skin color nor can that be relinquished even if it were true.

Privilege has been identified based on skin color, and further, we already legislate to mitigate its affects. See the 14th amendment, 24th amendment, civil rights act, voting rights act, affirmative action, and god knows what else I don't know about.

Life isn't fair, but its only an asshole who shrugs his shoulders and walks away rather than doing something about it.

[The Final Dakar]

...and since we're, what, a week out, and there's still been no vote from the owners, the chance that Sterling does get away with it (like he did in the 80s) is increasing. Any leverage the players have disappears once the playoffs end.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It looks worse if you continue paying someone, yes.

Looks worse?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Looks worse?

Are we pretending a big part of this isn't about image?

[subego]

No. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't reading more into your statement than was intended.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The goal? Many think we're already there (Chief Justice John Roberts among them).

Because he said "that was then, this is now"? He used voter turn-out to substantiate his conclusion. And he was correct. Times and the related data in voter turn-out had changed substantially from then. I don't recall him saying we're a post-racial society.

No, this leads to resentment and tension:

No, your chart illustrates resentment and tension. But you see, whites not only experience "anti-white" sentiment with regard to the black community and related affirmative actions for them, but also among the rapidly-growing latino community. We have curriculum actively teaching the atrocities committed by whites against Native Americans, African Americans, and by extension women (who by the way comprised most of the respondents), and Latinos. Whites cannot take "pride" in their whiteness, can always be suspect of racism, but cannot themselves ever expect to play a race card. They have no "hate crimes" protections. There is no "white" broadcaster and the notion would be unconscionable. No calls for an "all-white" basketball league, again unconscionable. There is no white congressional caucus, No white student loan program or radio stations and they are still culpable for Jim Crow whether they lived at the time or not. Many of the societal ills cited as evidence of continued racism today are in fact, socio-economic factors that exist across the board with stats showing overall declines in prosperity even as the black community shows a drop of more than 30% in perceived anti-black sentiment.

White people currently think they have it worse than blacks. i.e., persecution complex. Call me cynical, but I suspect that it hasn't even factored into peoples heads that since there are way more white people than black, there's going to be a lot more white racists getting called out than black (all things being equal).

I would disagree that whites have it worse than blacks and I was not asked to participate in the survey. Their conclusion is that whites view privilege as a zero-sum game and given our voting patterns, I'm inclined to agree that our culture has become soft and perhaps increasingly whiny overall. However, I don't think it's unreasonable or distasteful to question the paradigm of combatting racism with racism.

Privilege has been identified based on skin color, and further, we already legislate to mitigate its affects. See the 14th amendment, 24th amendment, civil rights act, voting rights act, affirmative action, and god knows what else I don't know about.

Privilege has never been defined by skin color, disenfranchisement has. There's a difference. And when you're not allowed to review these compensatory policies in light of progress, you're setting up privilege by definition, not perception.

Life isn't fair, but its only an asshole who shrugs his shoulders and walks away rather than doing something about it.

Who here has asked that we do nothing about it?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let's just settle this: You actually think what Lee did is worse than Sterling, even though one just watches the players and the other actually employs them?

The actions themselves? Much worse. He's scum, and why they continue to air his hijinks involving the NBA, after all the comments he's made about white people, gentrification, and black superiority, is a real mystery.

Well, he already seems to have passed up on opportunity with the Commish. As history and current events demonstrate, he's an unapologetic racist.

You don't pass down this type of shit without a general pow-wow with the accused, if for no other reason than to let history reflect the actual circumstances. Whether the commissioner felt morally justified or not, it all turned into a lynching.

No it wouldn't, It'd be a great time to obfuscate why they're there: To decide whether to rescind Sterling's ownership of the franchise.

There's quite enough obfuscation already, in terms of the problems between races, and these things will get worse if we don't completely air it all out, no matter whose nose gets bloody in the process.

Without a doubt.

I'm getting that most people don't know, or even care, what is going on with this issue.

That's their job. I wouldn't be surprised if they're put in that position because they're black. But you're really derailing things here.

Hogwash. Maybe they're being harassed and arrested because... they're breaking the law. The entire thug/"gangsta" culture is about, get this: breaking the law. It's not about opportunity, there's lots of that, if you're willing to put in the effort, it's about it being easier, more exciting, and more "heroic" to break the law. Judas Priest... "Get paid", get hos, **** up punks who don't "respect you", and all of that trickles down and permeates an entire section of society.

1. One was a spokesman in on commercial. The other is the current top of one of the league's 30 franchises.
2. Lee is not paid to run his mouth about mixed race couples. His comments and commercial are separate projects; They took place 20 years apart (AFAICT).

A current "top head" who, before this kerfuffle, no one in the real world had even ****ing heard of. They BOUGHT Lee's reputation, they KNOW what he was about, they WANTED that image attached to the NBA. They still air the spot, they STILL show him with the team EVERY GAME. IT'S INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM. Packaged, stamped, and marketed for public consumption. One is a mouthpiece for modern division and segregation, and the other is an 80 y/o man who no one has listened to in over 30 years, except when he pulls out his wallet.

Now it's a call for an all-black league, and we're back to the 1950s. Really? JESUS ****ING ****! IS ANYONE PAYING ANY ****ING ATTENTION?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and since we're, what, a week out, and there's still been no vote from the owners, the chance that Sterling does get away with it (like he did in the 80s) is increasing. Any leverage the players have disappears once the playoffs end.

His wife did nothing wrong, and she owns the team too. Or do women matter?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Or do women matter?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The actions themselves? Much worse.

What actions? Both made statements.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

There's quite enough obfuscation already, in terms of the problems between races, and these things will get worse if we don't completely air it all out, no matter whose nose gets bloody in the process.

This sounds like you're making it about more than the NBA.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm getting that most people don't know, or even care, what is going on with this issue.

I'm suddenly getting that you guys don't see this as a private organization deciding who they want to do business with, but some overall illustration of how unfair it is for white racists out there.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hogwash.

I hogwash your hogwash.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Maybe they're being harassed and arrested because... they're breaking the law.

Arrested, yes. Harassed, no. Simply put, white juvenile crime is taken as a less serious matter than black juvenile crime. One is seen as a phase, the other as their natural tendency.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A current "top head" who, before this kerfuffle, no one in the real world had even ****ing heard of.

Except for the part where he almost got kicked out of the league 30 years ago and has caught flak for his legal and verbal slips before.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

One is a mouthpiece for modern division and segregation, and the other is an 80 y/o man who no one has listened to in over 30 years, except when he pulls out his wallet.

Yup, the poor rich white guy is getting persecuted. I could listen reasonably to a discussion of white racism in the NBA, but your continued downplaying of Sterling's error, his history, his status, and denouncing the capitalistic (and likely legal) response to the situation really colors (pun intended) where you're arguing from in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His wife did nothing wrong, and she owns the team too. Or do women matter?

If a husband and wife own a Burger King franchise, and he says some racist shit, and Burger King decides to take away the franchise, is that wrong because the wife didn't do anything? (No.)

I don't know anything about Shelly Sterling, except that they've been married 60 years. This guy has been demonstrably a shitheel for 30 of them, which means she either didn't care, agreed, or liked the money too much. If one of those is the case, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Times and the related data in voter turn-out had changed substantially from then.

He fails to consider that this might be because of the VRA, not in spite of it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But you see, whites not only experience "anti-white" sentiment with regard to the black community and related affirmative actions for them, but also among the rapidly-growing latino community.

Haha, yes the whites have it so bad that those ethnic groups they outnumber combined are (maybe) racist against them. Life is difficult when those people who have a fraction of the positions of wealth and power you would expect when measured by their population size are possibly out to get you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We have curriculum actively teaching the atrocities committed by whites against Native Americans, African Americans, and by extension women (who by the way comprised most of the respondents), and Latinos.

These are historical facts, so what is the problem?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Whites cannot take "pride" in their whiteness

No one should be, of any color. But I'm pretty sure whites take pride in being Irish, German, Italian, etc. (St, Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, uh, Olive Garden Day). I don't have a problem with that (maybe I'm supposed to?)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They have no "hate crimes" protections.

We'll get our chance when we're the minority in 2050 or whatever.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Many of the societal ills cited as evidence of continued racism today are in fact, socio-economic factors that exist across the board

I'm with you here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

However, I don't think it's unreasonable or distasteful to question the paradigm of combatting racism with racism.

I'm with you again. Not a fan of fighting fire with fire.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Privilege has never been defined by skin color, disenfranchisement has. There's a difference.

So... you don't think white privilege exists?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And when you're not allowed to review these compensatory policies in light of progress, you're setting up privilege by definition, not perception.

The problem is, who gets to review them? Having a bunch of white people make the call seems ill-advised. We just recently ruled that Michigan, with its overwhelming majority of white voters, can vote to rescind affirmative action. That is incredibly ass-backwards.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who here has asked that we do nothing about it?

" I don't look for privilege as if it could be effectively relinquished by anyone who had it, whether they knew it or not." i.e., can't be done.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

(St, Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, uh, Olive Garden Day).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The sad part is I'm Italian.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What actions? Both made statements.

C'mon, don't lawyer me.

This sounds like you're making it about more than the NBA.

No, it's frighteningly all connected.

I'm suddenly getting that you guys don't see this as a private organization deciding who they want to do business with, but some overall illustration of how unfair it is for white racists out there.

So those Christians who don't want to do business with gays, that's okay now? What he did was bad, but what has been accepted and embraced by the whole organization is worse.

I hogwash your hogwash.

Of course.

Arrested, yes. Harassed, no. Simply put, white juvenile crime is taken as a less serious matter than black juvenile crime. One is seen as a phase, the other as their natural tendency.

Because it's much more frequent and violent, it's taught as a way of life through the cultures their idols have created.

Except for the part where he almost got kicked out of the league 30 years ago and has caught flak for his legal and verbal slips before.

While the people they like and want to be seen associating with go on being ignored.

Yup, the poor rich white guy is getting persecuted. I could listen reasonably to a discussion of white racism in the NBA, but your continued downplaying of Sterling's error, his history, his status, and denouncing the capitalistic (and likely legal) response to the situation really colors (pun intended) where you're arguing from in my eyes.

Capitalism when it suits you? Yes, yes, I must hate blacks, it breaks it down and makes it simple for the Left's group mind to understand, I suppose. It has nothing to do with the blatant hypocrisy shown by the organization. Kill the scapegoat and we'll keep embracing the 5% solution for the NBA and the culture surrounding it.

If a husband and wife own a Burger King franchise, and he says some racist shit, and Burger King decides to take away the franchise, is that wrong because the wife didn't do anything? (No.)

I don't know anything about Shelly Sterling, except that they've been married 60 years. This guy has been demonstrably a shitheel for 30 of them, which means she either didn't care, agreed, or liked the money too much. If one of those is the case, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Yeah, actually that scenario IS wrong, and isn't even legal. Holy cow, man, is she property? A dependent? Or, as they like to say in the 5% Nation, is she "just a female"? They don't like using the terms Woman and Lady, because "females ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks", like the song says. You've got it figured out, judged her and everything, and have never even heard a word from her mouth? That's... man, you need to rethink that, quickly.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His wife did nothing wrong, and she owns the team too. Or do women matter?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You've got it figured out, judged her and everything, and have never even heard a word from her mouth? That's... man, you need to rethink that, quickly.

In another deposition from 2009, former on-site manager Maira Oliva described Rochelle Sterling's visiting the apartment building she worked at on South Ardmore Avenue.

Oliva: “She said, ‘Oh, my God. This is so filthy. I can’t remodel my apartments the way that I want because Latinos are so filthy."

Attorney: “Did she say those exact words, ‘Latinos are so filthy’?”

Oliva: “I can’t remodel my building the way I want and that the building was filthy because of the Latinos."

An August 2003 court order by U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz in another housing discrimination lawsuit detailed Rochelle Sterling apparently posing as a health inspector while visiting a tenant’s apartment. A short video by one of the plaintiffs, Daryl Williams, documented the encounter in April 2003.

“[The] evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Rochelle Sterling did tell Plaintiff Williams she was a health inspector,” the order said. “Sterling’s failure to deny that she made that statement reinforces this conclusion.”

“Sumner Davenport declares that when she worked for Sterling she often accompanied Rochelle Sterling on apartment inspections, that Rochelle Sterling would regularly pose as a government official in order to gain access to tenants’ apartments,” the order said.

In a 2009 deposition, a tenant at one of the Sterling’s apartment buildings in Los Angeles County said that Rochelle Sterling called him a “black m—f—” during a discussion at the building.

“I asked her again, I asked her, ‘would you reduce the rent?’” Darrell Rhodes said in the deposition. “And she said, ‘who do you think you are, you black m—f—.’

“The way in which she said m—f— was more lower voiced, under her breath. She said black loud enough for me to hear, she said mother loud enough for me to hear. F— part was a little lower. I had to look at her lips to hear her say it. And I did.”

Shaddim it is more and more obvious you are doing absolutely nothing on your own to educate yourself on this situation. As Dakar said, she's been married to the guy for 60 years. Like-mindedness is a substantial part of a marital relationship. These previous depositions leave little else to speculate with Shelly Sterling.

Your Spike Lee argument is weak though you were moderately successful at presenting some sort of convoluted reverse racism to derail the actual point of this thread: A private organization is taking ownership away from an overt racist. This is happening because it first and foremost hurts the league's bottom line and image.

You make it painfully obvious you are a rich, white conservative who is angered with another rich, white conservative getting his "property" taken away. What you can't seem to understand is that it is not being ripped from his hands and there is absolutely justification for it. The team will sell for north of $1 billion, his initial investment being $15 million. Surely this is a sentence you can absorb.

What will happen is Donald Sterling will walk into a room with 28 other white billionaires and 1 black billionaire. He will be sat down and made to understand why his past behavior and current behavior hurts 29 other billionaires' investments. This is something he understands, which is why he is not fighting this.He will make an insane profit on a 30-year investment and he will continue on his slumlord ways.

Continue repeating angry emoticons and caps-locking "WHY ISN'T ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE REAL ISSUE!!!!!" It makes it easier for the rest of us to see your true colors.

What is especially chuckle-worthy is this line:

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

IT'S INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM. Packaged, stamped, and marketed for public consumption. One is a mouthpiece for modern division and segregation, and the other is an 80 y/o man who no one has listened to in over 30 years, except when he pulls out his wallet.

I guffaw at this because you apparently are utterly blind to the power an owner has on who he pays to work at his organization. That is ****ing institutionalized racism to a T.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

He's got 99 problems and a b*tch ain’t one?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

Shaddim it is more and more obvious you are doing absolutely nothing on your own to educate yourself on this situation. As Dakar said, she's been married to the guy for 60 years. Like-mindedness is a substantial part of a marital relationship. These previous depositions leave little else to speculate with Shelly Sterling.

Your Spike Lee argument is weak though you were moderately successful at presenting some sort of convoluted reverse racism to derail the actual point of this thread: A private organization is taking ownership away from an overt racist. This is happening because it first and foremost hurts the league's bottom line and image.

You make it painfully obvious you are a rich, white conservative who is angered with another rich, white conservative getting his "property" taken away. What you can't seem to understand is that it is not being ripped from his hands and there is absolutely justification for it. The team will sell for north of $1 billion, his initial investment being $15 million. Surely this is a sentence you can absorb.

What will happen is Donald Sterling will walk into a room with 28 other white billionaires and 1 black billionaire. He will be sat down and made to understand why his past behavior and current behavior hurts 29 other billionaires' investments. This is something he understands, which is why he is not fighting this.He will make an insane profit on a 30-year investment and he will continue on his slumlord ways.

Continue repeating angry emoticons and caps-locking "WHY ISN'T ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE REAL ISSUE!!!!!" It makes it easier for the rest of us to see your true colors.

What is especially chuckle-worthy is this line:

I guffaw at this because you apparently are utterly blind to the power an owner has on who he pays to work at his organization. That is ****ing institutionalized racism to a T.

No, you apparently don't know ME at all, and from the way you're behaving I certainly wouldn't want to know you. Should he lose the team? Likely so, given the circumstances. His name is taken off, he loses his rights to the team, his wife's name remains. She can still go to the games, do the things owners do. I don't see a problem there. Woman can actually own property now, it's a new thing. What's especially bad is racism that's endorsed and enjoyed in the NBA, along with what I suspect is more misogyny than I'd ever imagined. This thread has made some things crystal clear to me.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, you apparently don't know ME at all, and from the way you're behaving I certainly wouldn't want to know you. Should he lose the team? Likely so, given the circumstances. His name is taken off, he loses his rights to the team, his wife's name remains. She can still go to the games, do the things owners do. I don't see a problem there. Woman can actually own property now, it's a new thing. What's especially bad is racism that's endorsed and enjoyed in the NBA, along with what I suspect is more misogyny than I'd ever imagined. This thread has made some things crystal clear to me.

So can we hear it from your keyboard that you just ignored Shelly Sterling's racist quotes from legal depositions she was a co-defendant on with her husband Donald Sterling?

I am disappointed that you cannot respond to the points I make and assert that I hold the belief women cannot own property. Talk about not "know[ing] ME at all".

Edit:

Again, I repeat: A private organization removed a bigoted owner because it hurt their image and bottom line. 29 other billionaires want this to happen. As this situation has progressed, it has shifted to whether Shelly Sterling should continue owning the team.

I quoted a few instances from legal depositions on lawsuits Shelly Sterling was a co-defendant on with her husband, Donald Sterling.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Should he lose the team? Likely so, given the circumstances.

This is your most recent assessment of just the Donald Sterling situation. In what ways has the previously quoted legal depositions from multiple federal discrimination/housing discrimination lawsuits still lead you to believe it would be a good idea for Shelly Sterling to continue as an owner of the Clippers?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

So can we hear it from your keyboard that you just ignored Shelly Sterling's racist quotes from legal depositions she was a co-defendant on with her husband Donald Sterling?

I am saddened that you cannot respond to the points I make and assert that I hold the belief women cannot own property. Talk about not "know[ing] ME at all".

A black man can't be a "mother ****er"? Wow. Because I know a lot of whites, blacks, and latinos who are "mother ****ers" to work with. She's right about Latinos being more likely to trash a property too, it's due to the overcrowding in so many of them, that's something I admit. (I am a Liberal Latino, not an "angry white conservative".)

You didn't make points, you obviously don't feel there was any other racism in the NBA before Sterling made his recent boneheaded comments. So I don't believe there's much more we can discuss.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The sad part is I'm Italian.

AND PROUD OF IT, right?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

AND PROUD OF IT, right?

More than I should be, probably.

(Mainly I just use t to justify why I eat a lot of pasta and love Ferrari's)

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A black man can't be a "mother ****er"? Wow. Because I know a lot of whites, blacks, and latinos who are "mother ****ers" to work with. She's right about Latinos being more likely to trash a property too, it's due to the overcrowding in so many of them, that's something I admit. (I am a Liberal Latino, not an "angry white conservative".)

You didn't make points, you obviously don't feel there was any other racism in the NBA before Sterling made his recent boneheaded comments. So I don't believe there's much more we can discuss.

If I did not make points, what did you just respond to?

Do you feel the need to preface mother****er interjections with the target's skin color? I find that "mother****er" generally gets the point across, skin color being superfluous (or, gasp, racist).

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

She's right about Latinos being more likely to trash a property too, it's due to the overcrowding in so many of them, that's something I admit.

Do you simply not see how denying housing based on a stereotypical behavior of a race is racist?

Edit: I'll leave the last question for history's sake, but to be honest, I think I can answer it myself. Please, don't respond. There is at least something we agree on and that is there is no further discussion needed between you and me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

If I did not make points, what did you just respond to?

Do you feel the need to preface mother****er interjections with the target's skin color? I find that "mother****er" generally gets the point across, skin color being superfluous (or, gasp, racist).


Do you simply not see how denying housing based on a stereotypical behavior of a race is racist?

Edit: I'll leave the last question for history's sake, but to be honest, I think I can answer it myself. Please, don't respond. There is at least something we agree on and that is there is no further discussion needed between you and me.

You thought I was "white" and tried to make it out in a disparaging way, but that was okay? Really?

She didn't deny housing, she said she couldn't remodel the properties the way she wants, and that's likely true. When renting apartments to Latinos it's best to have a very simple floorplan with few individual rooms, to allow for a maximum number of beds. The fact you believe that means she's denying them housing entirely means you're reading that the way you want to. Buh-bye.

[abbaZaba]

I am kicking myself for continuing this, but you are quite good at poking the bear.
I assumed you are white because…I’ve seen your face in the Picture thread here awhile back. I also thought I saw Dakar or someone else earlier in this thread refer to you as a white conservative so those two things added up to 4 for me.

It does not change the fact that you are quite good at derailing a topic. I applaud your nitpicking and choosing to read between the lines when it suits you. I will admit, it was decidedly crafty the way you avoided admitting prefacing an insult with skin color was in anyway not racist.

The question I proposed a couple posts back was, after all this information,

In what ways has the previously quoted legal depositions from multiple federal discrimination/housing discrimination lawsuits still lead you to believe it would be a good idea for Shelly Sterling to continue as an owner of the Clippers?

You still haven’t addressed that question. I fail to see how a logical person can look at how the Donald Sterling situation went down, look at Shelly Sterling’s past comments and joint lawsuits and come to the conclusion that it would still be reasonable for her to remain an owner. Contrary to the allusion used earlier, that does not add up 4.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

His wife did nothing wrong, and she owns the team too. Or do women matter?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You've got it figured out, judged her and everything, and have never even heard a word from her mouth? That's... man, you need to rethink that, quickly.

[Shaddim]

I did answer it:

She didn't deny housing, she said she couldn't remodel the properties the way she wants, and that's likely true. When renting apartments to Latinos it's best to have a very simple floorplan with few individual rooms, to allow for a maximum number of beds. The fact you believe that means she's denying them housing entirely means you're reading that the way you want to.

Her comments had nothing to do with the league in any way and did not single out a specific individual. Is she guilty of stereotyping? Probably. Are you? Definitely. Is that enough to deny her right to her property? Likely not, and the NBA will get hit with a suit that they have no hope of winning if they force it, which is likely why we haven't seen that vote from the owners yet. I've not derailed a damned thing, this thread is about racism, and if you scratch the surface you find a load of hypocrisy (from the NBA's own associations and policies) and a whiff of sexism (that I wasn't expecting). You came in here and found what you wanted to find, then became angry and said you'd take your toys home when you found it. Again I say, really?

I get it, you have your mind set a certain way, some racism is okay, as long as it's the right kind. Put it on the white man's shoulders, he's been in charge, he can take it. The problem is, that still leads to the same place and engenders even more resentment and fighting. QED.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He fails to consider that this might be because of the VRA, not in spite of it.

I saw his ruling as a simple acknowledgement that the 50 year old legislation applying only to nine states with respect to clearing voting procedure changes through the Justice Dept or Federal Court was not a life-sentence. I believe this was the right thing to do. BTW, language in the ruling maintains the right for Congress to either reimpose the VRA or impose it on other States demonstrating a need, but it must be based on contemporaneous data. A completely reasonable ruling.

Haha, yes the whites have it so bad that those ethnic groups they outnumber combined are (maybe) racist against them. Life is difficult when those people who have a fraction of the positions of wealth and power you would expect when measured by their population size are possibly out to get you.

We're probably not going to get very far here. I don't think prosperity is apportioned by skin color, I think it's apportioned by those who avail themselves of opportunity.

These are historical facts, so what is the problem?

The problem is that it's only half the story. We don't learn for example that the slave trade began by enslaving neighboring tribes and selling their "chattel" to other merchants for salt. We don't learn about the Cherokee tribe's conquest of territories and tribes throughout North America for example or the atrocities committed against one another. Historical facts do not suggest that greed, imperialism, and humans rights abuses are exclusive to the Anglo-Euro white male, but that might just be the take-away from our curriculum.

No one should be, of any color. But I'm pretty sure whites take pride in being Irish, German, Italian, etc. (St, Patrick's Day, Oktoberfest, uh, Olive Garden Day). I don't have a problem with that (maybe I'm supposed to?)

While this was, but one of numerous examples I offered to explain a creeping resentment among whites -- it is not a battlefield I choose to die on. I understand why black people in the US may celebrate their "blackness" having had their actual heritage stripped from them, but it is a point in fact. BET is not "African Television" for example. There are a lot of whites that were not born under, raised with, or connected to Jim Crow of 50 years ago. While we may have many relics that illustrate that time, our younger generations of whites should not have to see themselves as complicit in those atrocities, but I believe an imbalanced treatment of the "facts of history", culture, and legislation may leave them disappointed in this regard. And in fact, disenfranchised.

We'll get our chance when we're the minority in 2050 or whatever.

"We" weren't complicit in any of the crimes used to justify the legislation. I think it's prudent to continuously examine compensatory legislation that offers unequal protections under the law.

I'm with you here.

I'm not sure you are. If you were truly "with me" here, you'd likely be less apt to use the proportions of positions of wealth and power in your line of reasoning.

I'm with you again. Not a fan of fighting fire with fire.

But that's exactly what policies based solely on skin color are doing.

So... you don't think white privilege exists?

I don't think someone has privilege merely by virtue of their skin color, no.

The problem is, who gets to review them? Having a bunch of white people make the call seems ill-advised. We just recently ruled that Michigan, with its overwhelming majority of white voters, can vote to rescind affirmative action. That is incredibly ass-backwards.

Why? Was it not a bunch of white people that legislated the Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, and all those other things you listed as seeking to balance minority status? As long as you maintain the powers of the co-equal branches of government, the elected representatives will be kept in check. If you can establish that the problem with the lack of minorities in positions of wealth and power has more to do with the proportion of that bloc seeking those opportunities to begin with, the isms we're trying to combat are occurring well before an affirmative action would apply and you're left with nothing, but racist policy.

"I don't look for privilege as if it could be effectively relinquished by anyone who had it, whether they knew it or not." i.e., can't be done.

That's not proposing we do nothing about unfairness. I don't think privilege is determined by skin color unless legislation specifically offers it nor do I believe whites could relinquish their skin color even if they wanted to forego that privileged condition.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

So wait, are people in support of the NBA's punishment of Donald Sterling or no?

[Laminar]

Rich white conservatives are not. They are excited, however, because this gives them another opportunity to push their own agenda.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

So wait, are people in support of the NBA's punishment of Donald Sterling or no?

We all decided that he's a great big shithead. But, undecided about whether him being a great big shithead is enough to deny his wife's claim to owning the team.

and we have people trolling about rich, white people.*


(* that's okay to do, but saying anything about poor, black people is verboten.)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

They are co-owners, no? Does anyone know what the NBA's constitution says about termination of ownership in the case of co-owners? Thinking logically, a forced sale due to breach of ownership terms should not just mean the sale of the particular individual who did the deed. That would be particularly poor construction - you're effectively poisoning the well by forcing potential new buyers to buy into a percentage share and become business partners with a potentially disgruntled holdout. It's a very messy situation and buyers hate it. Those type of situations are specifically avoided in many closely held corporations' shareholders' agreements for good reason.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

So wait, are people in support of the NBA's punishment of Donald Sterling or no?

I'm wholly in favor of Sterling's punishment, but feel that this would've made a great opportunity for Silver to have put racism in all its forms in the NBA on notice. i.e. racism in the NBA does not begin and end with Sterling.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yes, well, we have already discussed my feeling that you tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater when it comes to being effective and getting one thing done at a time. Just getting rid of Sterling is going to be a difficult process that will drag on forever and waste precious resources; it would be an all-consuming media circus if this turned into some kind of massive review process of racism in all its forms.

[Laminar]

My favorite part is where conservatives use this as an opportunity to pretend to champion women's rights.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Rich white conservatives are not. They are excited, however, because this gives them another opportunity to push their own agenda.

Do you believe all the lefts fictional stereotypes and mis-characterizations?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

My favorite part is where conservatives use this as an opportunity to pretend to champion women's rights.

You're misreading them. They're championing money rights.

Obviously I don't have an understanding of the difference between suing a married man (where all assets are shared) and suing to remove him. I wouldn't be surprised to find out this is a logical liability of a partnership, though.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, well, we have already discussed my feeling that you tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater when it comes to being effective and getting one thing done at a time. Just getting rid of Sterling is going to be a difficult process that will drag on forever and waste precious resources; it would be an all-consuming media circus if this turned into some kind of massive review process of racism in all its forms.

For a people who understand making quick business decisions because money is at stake, its amazing the left-like zeal that those same people have had asking that we make sure the NBA ideologically pure RIGHT THIS MINUTE.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Do you believe all the lefts fictional stereotypes and mis-characterizations?

Do you always frame everything as a left vs right issue, don't answer that since it's rhetorical.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're misreading them. They're championing money rights.

Bingo, of course this was well known at the start.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

For a people who understand making quick business decisions because money is at stake, its amazing the left-like zeal that those same people have had asking that we make sure the NBA ideologically pure RIGHT THIS MINUTE.

It's called deflection. Shaddim and Ebuddy have no interest in the NBA or it's rules, but only see this issue as a reason to defend the poor rich whites of this country and the hardships they face in the media. Donald and his wife are both unrepentant racists that will no longer own an NBA team because the NBA gets to decide how its image is presented and sold. That's quite literally the only thing worth talking about. This whole tangent of Spike Lee and poor lady sterling's half ownership only illustrates just how little there is to say about this issue.

....anyone see his Anderson Cooper interview? Wow, this guy couldn't dig himself in a hole any better if he was using a backhoe.

[Shaddim]

Wow, lots of mischaracterization, projection, and baiting going on now. Eh.

[sek929]

That .gif is an acurrate portrayal of everyone who listened to him rant about AIDS.

Guess it's a good time to give up on defending him anyways.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Wow, lots of mischaracterization, projection, and baiting going on now. Eh.

Having just gone back and read the last page to see if I missed anything re: NBA constitution: you mean the sort of mischaracterization and baiting that would allow you to imply that people who support the removal of Shelly Sterling are possibly sexist, misogynistic, and not aware that women can own property?

Just, you know...to be fair.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I've not derailed a damned thing, this thread is about racism, and if you scratch the surface you find a load of hypocrisy (from the NBA's own associations and policies) and a whiff of sexism (that I wasn't expecting).

Woman can actually own property now, it's a new thing. What's especially bad is racism that's endorsed and enjoyed in the NBA, along with what I suspect is more misogyny than I'd ever imagined. This thread has made some things crystal clear to me.

[subego]

Sterling asked the Coop this during their interview.

"Did you ever like a girl or were you ever jealous of her a little bit if she was with other guys?"

Why, oh why didn't you let him answer that question?

[subego]

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sterling asked the Coop this during their interview.

"Did you ever like a girl or were you ever jealous of her a little bit if she was with other guys?"

Why, oh why didn't you let him answer that question?

You know I've not said much about Mr. Sterling because in all honesty I think his comments speak for themselves. But since this so-called "jealousy" explanation seems to be taking root in certain circles ... and now we have the "early symptoms of dementia" trial balloon being floated ... I think it's fitting to see everything the man had to say so we can be clear what this is all about. And perhaps then some may be more inclined to just keep it real and call it for what it is:

V. Stiviano
Honey, I’m sorry.

Donald Sterling
I’m sorry too.

V. Stiviano
I wish I could change the skin. The color of my skin.

Donald Sterling
That isn’t the issue. You’ve missed this issue.

V. Stiviano
What’s the issue?

Donald Sterling
The issue is we don’t have to broadcast everything.

V. Stiviano
I’m not broadcasting anything. I don’t do anything wrong.

Donald Sterling
Nobody said you did anything wrong.

V. Stiviano
I don’t do anything wrong. If we ever have any issues it’s because people call you and tell you things about me that are not true.

Donald Sterling
Then why are you broadcasting? … And why are you taking pictures with minorities…why?

V. Stiviano
What’s wrong with minorities? What’s wrong with black people?

Donald Sterling
Nothing. Nothing.

V. Stiviano
What’s wrong with Hispanics?

Donald Sterling
It’s like talking to an enemy. There’s nothing wrong with minorities, they’re fabulous. Fabulous. Because you’re an enemy to me.

V. Stiviano
Why?

Donald Sterling
Because you don’t understand.

V. Stiviano
I don’t understand what?

Donald Sterling
Nothing. Nothing.

V. Stiviano
That racism still is alive?

Donald Sterling
No, but there’s a culture. People feel certain things. Hispanics feel certain things towards blacks. Blacks feel certain things toward other groups. It’s been that way historically, and it will always be that way.

V. Stiviano
But it’s not that way in my heart and in my mind.

Donald Sterling
But maybe you want to adjust to the world.

V. Stiviano
But why if the world doesn’t do anything for me and they don’t make me happy?

Donald Sterling
You’re right. I don’t wanna argue with you. I don’t wanna argue.

V. Stiviano
I can’t be racist in my heart.

Donald Sterling
And that’s good. I’m living in a culture, and I have to live within the culture. So that’s the way it is….You can’t be flexible. You can’t be flexible, you can’t–

V. Stiviano
I am flexible. I understand that that’s the way you were raised, and that’s your culture. And I’m respectful and–

Donald Sterling
Well why do have to disrespect them. Those are–

V. Stiviano
Who am I disrespecting?

Donald Sterling
The world before you.

V. Stiviano
Why am I disrespecting them?

Donald Sterling
By walking, and you’re perceived as either a Latina or a white girl. Why can’t you be walking publicly with black people? Why? Is there a benefit to you?

V. Stiviano
Is it a benefit to me? Does it matter if they’re white or blue or yellow?

Donald Sterling
I guess that you don’t know that. Maybe you’re stupid. Maybe you don’t know what people think of you. It does matter, yeah! It matters.

V. Stiviano
Do you know that I’m mixed?

Donald Sterling
No, I don’t know that.

V. Stiviano
You know that I’m mixed.

Donald Sterling
You told me you were going to remove those. You said, “Yes, I understand you.” I mean, you change from day to day. Wow. So painful. Wow.

V. Stiviano
People call you and tell you that I have black people on my Instagram. And it bothers you.

Donald Sterling
Yeah, it bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?

V. Stiviano
You associate with black people.

Donald Sterling
I’m not you, and you’re not me. You’re supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl.

V. Stiviano
I’m a mixed girl. And you’re in love with me. And I’m black and Mexican, whether you like it or not, whether the world accepts it or not. And you’re asking me to remove something that’s part of me and in my bloodstream because the world thinks different of me and you’re afraid of what they’re going to think see because of your upbringing? You want me to have hate towards black people?

Donald Sterling
I don’t want you to have hate. That’s what people do, they turn things around. I want you to love them, privately. In your whole life, everyday, you can be with them. Every single day of your life.

V. Stiviano
But not in public?

Donald Sterling
But why publicize it on the Instagram and why bring it to my games?

V. Stiviano
Why bring the black people to the games…I…

Donald Sterling
I don’t think we need to discuss anymore. It’s over. I don’t wanna talk about it.

V. Stiviano
I’m sorry that you feel that way.

Donald Sterling
I feel that way so strongly, and it may cause our relationship to just break apart. And if it does, it does. It’s better to break apart now, than to break apart later.

V. Stiviano
I’m sorry that you still have people around you that are full of racism and hate in their heart. I’m sorry that you’re still racist in your heart. I’m sorry that you live in a world that’s still–

Donald Sterling
How about your whole life, everyday, you could whatever you want. You can sleep with them, you can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that…and not to bring them to my games.

V. Stiviano
I don’t bring anyone to the games.

Donald Sterling
Ok then, there’s nothing to argue about.

V. Stiviano
I know.

Donald Sterling
OK, we’ve got a big problem here…We’ve got a big problem. If you didn’t like someone that I was with I would stop seeing that person and…

V. Stiviano
I’m sorry, I don’t have any more friends. What would you like me to do? Remove the skin color out of my skin?

Donald Sterling
Is that a real issue or are you making something up?

V. Stiviano
I mean, I just don’t understand what the issue is.

Donald Sterling
There’s nothing wrong with you or your skin color. Why are you saying these things? To upset me?

V. Stiviano
Sweetie, I’m sorry.

Donald Sterling
I’m so sorry too. We made a giant mistake. Both of us. Everything you say to me is so painful. Do I want you to change the color of your skin? You really know how to hurt somebody, instead of saying, “I understand.”

V. Stiviano
I don’t understand how you can have so much hate toward minorities.

Donald Sterling
I don’t have any hate on nothing.

V. Stiviano
How a person like you who’s elevated, who’s here still feels he’s above the world and you can’t even be seen with someone considered of a different skin color.

Donald Sterling
They can be with me all day long and all night long.

V. Stiviano
I can’t believe that a man who’s educated, a man who’s a scholar, a man–

Donald Sterling
Well, believe it, and stop talking about it! You’re not making any good points. You can’t believe this man…that’s all I am. I’m not a good person in your eyes. If I was a good person, you wouldn’t say, “I can’t believe this, I can’t believe that.” Which are all lies. I love the black people.

V. Stiviano
Look at all this negativity coming from–

Donald Sterling
There is no negativity. I love everybody. I’m just saying, in your lousy ****ing Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people. You don’t have to. If you want to, do it.

V. Stiviano
If it’s white people it’s OK?

[Long pause]

V. Stiviano
If it was Larry Bird, would it have made a difference?

Donald Sterling
You’re just a…big fighter. I can see — who would want to live with a woman like you? Who would want to live with a woman like you? All you ever wanted to do is fight. You’re a born fighter.

V. Stiviano
I’m sorry that you’re mad.

Donald Sterling
You have the worst mouth.

V. Stiviano
Why are you so angry, honey? What’s wrong?

Donald Sterling
Why would you bring up Larry Bird? What does he got to do with it? You can walk all night long with your sisters. Or you family.

V. Stiviano
I saw someone I admire. I admire Magic Johnson.

Donald Sterling
OK, good.

V. Stiviano
I’m sorry.

Donald Sterling
OK.

V. Stiviano
He’s made a lot of changes for his community, for the world, for the people, for the minorities. He’s helped a lot of people.

Donald Sterling
Why are you forcing this down my throat? I’m finished talking to you.

V. Stiviano
And I took a picture with someone I admire. He happens to be black, and I’m sorry.

Donald Sterling
I think that fact that you admire him — I’ve known him well, and he should be admired. And I’m just saying that it’s too bad you can’t admire him privately, and during YOUR ENTIRE ****ING LIFE, your whole life, admire him, bring him here, feed him, f*ck him, I don’t care. You can do anything. But don’t put him on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don’t bring him to my games. OK?

V. Stiviano
I don’t…I’ve never brought…I don’t know him personally.

Donald Sterling
Please leave me alone. Please? Please?

V. Stiviano
I’m sorry. Is there anything that I can do to make you feel better?

Donald Sterling
No, you can never make me feel better.

Los Angeles Clippers Owner Donald Sterling - V. Stiviano Racist Scandal - Audio Transcript - Magnus Today

No good people. This is NOT about "jealousy". You don't tell your side piece that she can "bring him here, feed him, f*ck him, I don't care." if you were jealous about some other dude. Besides, Mr. Sterling knows that she was not romantically involved with Magic Johnson. It's clear that this was simply a woman who took a picture with a celebrity and posted it on her Instagram page. The issue is that said celebrity was black. Because from his own words it's staggeringly obvious that this is about a man who's girlfriend is "perceived as either a Latina or a white girl" and "it bothers [him] a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people" because his peers call him up and give him a hard time about it. And that speaks volumes about Mr. Sterling's mindset as well as that of the company he keeps.

OAW

[Laminar]

Is the transcript full of typos or are they just poor speakers?

[OAW]

The transcript reflects the audio recording so that would be the latter I suppose.

OAW

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A black man can't be a "mother ****er"?

Only if he has it labeled on his wallet.

[Laminar]

You can walk all night long with your sisters. Or you family.

.....