Banned for life

Zombie_Babies · May 1, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
Exactly. If the league wanted to, it could fine/suspend its members for even non-criminal acts that are deemed to be against league policy. Sport leagues do that all the time.

*sigh*

How many times do I have to say 'I do not think the NBA did anything it was not allowed/did not have the right to do'? I haven't argued that the NBA did something it couldn't. Can we get off that strawman now? Thanks!

Zombie_Babies · May 1, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
The NBA did what any other company would do to someone that damaged it's image and brand. If you did something to make your company look bad, you'd get fired.

It's a little different in the case of an owner and there are other steps that could have been taken first.

You make it sound as if just because he said something in private, he hasn't done anything that could be considered discrimination against employees or fans. He already has a track record of discrimination against minorities. The butterfly that it has come out regarding his other business dealings, does not mean it hasn't occurred in the Clippers organization.

The butterfly of the matter is that we don't know he did anything. You can't convict someone cuz they look like they did it, you need the butterflies to prove that they did. In this case, those butterflies aren't there.

And, for the record, the butterfly is that I have said I believe he did what those folks that sued him said he did. There's no proof outside of what they said, though, and hearsay should never be enough to 'convict' someone.

There's a special place in hell for people like you, you monster!

Does it get ESPN?

They are bound by contracts. They may want to leave, and I think one of the Clippers' players said as much, but he has a contract. NPR had some legal guy on there talking about how that was a possibility if he had something about hostile work environment or something like that. So yeah, they can want to leave, but they are restricted by their contracts. Just like Sterling is bound by his contract.

Bro? Players refuse to play until they're traded from time to time. Plus this could easily be considered a special case by the NBA and NBPA.

Of course it's not a valid reason on it's own. Taken with everything else, it's just another notch in the boot him column.

When 'everything else' amounts to 'crap some people said', well, I don't think it's enough.

Whatever society decides. That's how it generally works. We have social norms, and those that violate those norms suffer the consequences. Besides, it's not like he is being criminally charged and punished with jail time. He is getting kicked out of a group. It happens all the time. You can see it in school kids. All these social cliques have similar rules and consequences. You do something that violates the group's rules, yo get ostracized from it.

That it happens does not make it right. Social norms have also been responsible for some terrible stuff, Adolf.

He has done racist things. Look at his troubles with his real estate stuff and discriminating against minorities. You can't just take what he said in the phone call and quarantine it. It's not like this guy is a racist, except when he is dealing with the Clippers. He hates black people renting in Beverly hills, but he loves black people when it has to do with basketball, unless his girlfriend brings them to a basketball game, then he hates them, unless they are players, but he might hate the other employees if they are black, unless they come to the game as a paying fan, etc.

dood, as far as we know he didn't do anything. He was accused, not convicted. He was never ordered to even pay anyone compensation of any sort ... cuz he settled. There is no proof whatsoever that he ever discriminated against an employee or customer in his NBA business - something people continue to avoid discussing for some reason.

Homicidal_Squirrel · May 1, 2014

Zombie_Babies said:
It's a little different in the case of an owner and there are other steps that could have been taken first.

It's not really any different. You embarrass you company, you get kicked out of the company. He embarrassed the NBA, he is getting kicked out. Sure, they could have done other things, but they don't have to. It's their choice.

The butterfly of the matter is that we don't know he did anything. You can't convict someone cuz they look like they did it, you need the butterflies to prove that they did. In this case, those butterflies aren't there.

Then it's good he isn't being convicted. Then again, the NBA doesn't convict anyone. It makes business decision and it has made one based on the evidence they have. From what I heard on NPR, this guy admitted to the commissioner it was him saying those things.

And, for the record, the butterfly is that I have said I believe he did what those folks that sued him said he did. There's no proof outside of what they said, though, and hearsay should never be enough to 'convict' someone.

Well, that we know of, but I'm betting there was enough proof to convict him, which is why he settled instead of going to court.

Does it get ESPN?

Nope, Fight Pass.

Bro? Players refuse to play until they're traded from time to time. Plus this could easily be considered a special case by the NBA and NBPA.

It could, but the fact is they still have contracts. The guys that refuse to play until they get traded may also have something in their contracts. Otherwise, they are probably losing money, and they can't play for another team.

When 'everything else' amounts to 'crap some people said', well, I don't think it's enough.

Sure, and if it was just this, I'd say, maybe you got a point. However, this guy has a history of this stuff. It's not something that is recent either. And those two incidents aren't the only ones. So yeah, when so many people say you've said or done something to them for so long, there may be something to it.

That it happens does not make it right. Social norms have also been responsible for some terrible stuff, Adolf.

Well, technically Adolf changed the social norm, and not everyone believed it was right. Some just followed it out of fear. In the case of the NBA and this guy, yeah, no one is getting killed. I'm pretty sure there is a difference somewhere in there.

dood, as far as we know he didn't do anything. He was accused, not convicted. He was never ordered to even pay anyone compensation of any sort ... cuz he settled. There is no proof whatsoever that he ever discriminated against an employee or customer in his NBA business - something people continue to avoid discussing for some reason.

Right, because he settled. I'm pretty sure if there was no proof, he wouldn't have settled.

Umbran · May 1, 2014

Zombie_Babies said:
Then we do not have freedom of speech and we need to stop pretending we do.

Who is this "we"? You're the only one here who seems to be operating under the misapprehension.

And that's okay, because freedom as you seem to want it - freedom to speak without any repercussions - cannot truly exist. If you speak, act, or otherwise express yourself, and you are then protected from repercussions, that means *everyone else* is restricted in their speech, as they cannot act to express themselves in response. It becomes "first speaker" freedom, not overall freedom.

Instead, it is simple - as private citizens, you get to express yourself, and I get to express myself. Sterling expressed himself, and the NBA, collectively, expressed themselves. What's the problem?

Yup, advertisers are gonna stop doing business ... with his team. You know, the one he owns. They didn't threaten to stop spending money with The Heat or even The Lakers (who, coincidentally, play in the same facility as The Clippers), they said they'd stop spending their money with Sterling's team. That's a singular impact.

The NBA does revenue sharing, so an impact to the Clippers is not localized to that team alone. And the Clippers are in the Top-10 for game attendance, so if they are heavily impacted, that matters to others in the league.

Interesting but not accurate. Here's a simple test: Without looking any names up, give me the name of 5 NBA owners. Now give me the names of 5 NBA players. Tell me who, exactly, has the most impact in a public facing way?

Who stipulated that the only issue was obviously public-facing impact? While the PR portion is considerable, the NBA and the Players Association are probably also concerned with internal impact on the players themselves, and on the business operations.

Dannyalcatraz · May 1, 2014

From what I heard on NPR, this guy admitted to the commissioner it was him saying those things.

Multiple news outlets have currently reported his admission to the commish.

As for the settlement vs proof debate, it is possible that someone will settle even if innocent- pretty much the definition of what happens in a nuisance suit- and it may have been the decision of his insurance company to settle. Some insurance policies are written so that if the InsCo recommends settlement and you decide to fight, you are no longer covered for the events in litigation- you're 100% exposed to whatever liability may be assessed.

However, this guy has a widely reported pattern of getting into the same kind of race-based landlord-tenant disputes. Where there is smoke...

Umbran · May 1, 2014

Zombie_Babies said:
You can't convict someone cuz they look like they did it, you need the butterflies to prove that they did.

This isn't a criminal case. The burden of proof required is not comparable to court proceedings.

If Sterling wanted greater protection from his own jerkitude, he should have arranged for it within the rules of his business arrangements. If he didn't want to be subject to the decisions of the organization, he should have sold the team.

Basically, he set up the situation himself. Why should he be protected from his own bad decisions?

Zombie_Babies · May 1, 2014

goldomark said:
What does it change?

Private conversations do not indicate public behavior/

It doesn't make his comment less racist.

And I never argued that it did. Straman says he's sad you're beating him up like this.

It is probably protected more in Canada than in the US. The US Constitution in the only protects against guberment interference. The Charter of Rights in Canada protects free speech:

Umm ... no. Comics can't do their act in Canadia.

Hate speech is an exception in Canada, but who would want to protect hate speech?

Nobody. Hate speech isn't the issue here. You wanted to know why I say that the fact that his remarks were made in a private setting makes a difference, well, this is it. What he said to one person was not hate speech. It was racist, wrong and disgusting but it wasn't meant to incite anything nor was it made to sway anyone's opinion about anything. People should be able to say anything they want to in a private setting. We don't need thought police.

Zombie_Babies · May 1, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
It's not really any different. You embarrass you company, you get kicked out of the company. He embarrassed the NBA, he is getting kicked out. Sure, they could have done other things, but they don't have to. It's their choice.

Yup, and I've never argued it wasn't.

Then it's good he isn't being convicted. Then again, the NBA doesn't convict anyone. It makes business decision and it has made one based on the evidence they have. From what I heard on NPR, this guy admitted to the commissioner it was him saying those things.

Oh pedantry, how I love thee. Turns of phrase are just that.

At any rate, yes, he admitted to saying things in a private conversation that had nothing to do with his business.

Well, that we know of, but I'm betting there was enough proof to convict him, which is why he settled instead of going to court.

That's an assumption and nothing more. Dangerous, too, as people often plead to crimes they didn't commit in order to avoid worse jail time if they lose the court case. Companies also settle when they're losing too much money in court costs.

Nope, Fight Pass.

Hmm ... I'll consider it.

It could, but the fact is they still have contracts. The guys that refuse to play until they get traded may also have something in their contracts. Otherwise, they are probably losing money, and they can't play for another team.

Well since you wanna base everything on assumptions, I'll do the same: The NBA and NBPA would work out an exemption agreement with Clippers players.

Sure, and if it was just this, I'd say, maybe you got a point. However, this guy has a history of this stuff. It's not something that is recent either. And those two incidents aren't the only ones. So yeah, when so many people say you've said or done something to them for so long, there may be something to it.

He has a history of being accused of this stuff. There's no proof to any of it anywhere. Again, a phone conversation isn't the same thing as preventing people from purchasing tickets or unfair hiring practices.

And, again, I agree he's a racist. So what?

Well, technically Adolf changed the social norm, and not everyone believed it was right. Some just followed it out of fear. In the case of the NBA and this guy, yeah, no one is getting killed. I'm pretty sure there is a difference somewhere in there.

I accept your concession.

Right, because he settled. I'm pretty sure if there was no proof, he wouldn't have settled.

Not necessarily true.

Zombie_Babies · May 1, 2014

Umbran said:
Who is this "we"? You're the only one here who seems to be operating under the misapprehension.

And that's okay, because freedom as you seem to want it - freedom to speak without any repercussions - cannot truly exist. If you speak, act, or otherwise express yourself, and you are then protected from repercussions, that means *everyone else* is restricted in their speech, as they cannot act to express themselves in response. It becomes "first speaker" freedom, not overall freedom.

Instead, it is simple - as private citizens, you get to express yourself, and I get to express myself. Sterling expressed himself, and the NBA, collectively, expressed themselves. What's the problem?

No problem. I simply don't like the way we pretend.

The NBA does revenue sharing, so an impact to the Clippers is not localized to that team alone. And the Clippers are in the Top-10 for game attendance, so if they are heavily impacted, that matters to others in the league.

Yup. Did it matter yet? Nope. Again, I'm not saying the NBA didn't have reason or right.

Who stipulated that the only issue was obviously public-facing impact? While the PR portion is considerable, the NBA and the Players Association are probably also concerned with internal impact on the players themselves, and on the business operations.

The players drive the entire damned industry. Pretending what they say and do doesn't matter as much as what the owners say and do is just silly.

Zombie_Babies · May 1, 2014

Dannyalcatraz said:
Multiple news outlets have currently reported his admission to the commish.

As for the settlement vs proof debate, it is possible that someone will settle even if innocent- pretty much the definition of what happens in a nuisance suit- and it may have been the decision of his insurance company to settle. Some insurance policies are written so that if the InsCo recommends settlement and you decide to fight, you are no longer covered for the events in litigation- you're 100% exposed to whatever liability may be assessed.

However, this guy has a widely reported pattern of getting into the same kind of race-based landlord-tenant disputes. Where there is smoke...

I was hoping you'd chime in on that, Danny. Thanks. Anyhoo, we do differ a bit. I don't think it's ever ok to damn someone because of an assumption you made about them. I fully believe he's a racist but I have no proof that he allowed that to impact any of his business ventures. I believe he allowed it to impact his real estate business but I've seen literally nothing showing that his NBA business was impacted even a little. Again, he wasn't telling some paying customer they weren't welcome, he was telling someone who he'd prefer they refrain from bringing to the games on tickets he paid for.

Umbran said:
This isn't a criminal case. The burden of proof required is not comparable to court proceedings.

That's my problem. We too quickly damn people just because it makes us feel better. Nothing that happened to him would stand up in court because he did nothing illegal. There's no proof of any wrongdoing on his part aside from something he said in a private - as in not business related - conversation.

If Sterling wanted greater protection from his own jerkitude, he should have arranged for it within the rules of his business arrangements. If he didn't want to be subject to the decisions of the organization, he should have sold the team.

Basically, he set up the situation himself. Why should he be protected from his own bad decisions?

He set up his own set up? A private conversation was recorded - unless you honestly believe he knew about it.

Anyhoo, he said something and did nothing. To me, there's a vast difference between thought and deed - and thank god I'm not totally alone in that. If they were one and the same - like ya'all wanna see it here - then most of us would be on death row for thinking about strangling that b-hole at work who microwaved that fish for 10 minutes.

Banned for life

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Homicidal_Squirrel

Adventurer

Umbran

Mod Squad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Umbran

Mod Squad

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Similar Threads