Donald Sterling: Don't Bring Black People to My Games

[TheSoundofThrowingPennies]

Haha this thread is awesome.

[Cosmic]

YEAH WELL I WAS EATING THE PITAYA BEFORE APES EVOLVED BUT THEY DIDN'T EVOLVE BECAUSE GOD

SO I ATE DRAGONFRUIT BEFORE DINOSAURS SINCE THEY DIDN'T EXIST (RELIGION THREAD, GO) AND DRAGONS WEREN'T EVEN A THING YET SINCE THERE WERE NO HUMANS TO INVENT THEM

Cookies and cream ice cream that comes in a container that looks like a fireball from Street Fighter II? Sign me up.

[Evil Doctor]

YEAH WELL I WAS EATING THE PITAYA BEFORE APES EVOLVED BUT THEY DIDN'T EVOLVE BECAUSE GOD

SO I ATE DRAGONFRUIT BEFORE DINOSAURS SINCE THEY DIDN'T EXIST (RELIGION THREAD, GO) AND DRAGONS WEREN'T EVEN A THING YET SINCE THERE WERE NO HUMANS TO INVENT THEM

Cookies and cream ice cream that comes in a container that looks like a fireball from Street Fighter II? Sign me up.

Dragon Fruit has a nice subtle flavour to it, similar to Kiwi. However the price one has to pay for it over here doesn't make it really worth it.

[The_Admiral]

Bill Maher had a pretty good take on this, the kind I think a lot of us were afraid to say first:

Now that Americans are getting wise to the dangers of being spied on by the government, they have to get more alarmed about spying on each other. Because if the Donald Sterling mess proved anything, it's that there's a force out there just as powerful as Big Brother: Big Girlfriend.

Last week, when President Obama was asked about the Sterling episode, he said, "when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, just let them talk." But Sterling didn't advertise. He was bugged. And while he may not be worth defending, the Fourth Amendment is. That's the one that says we have the right to be secure in our person. In our homes. In our property. Well, not if bitching to your girlfriend in your home loses you your property.

In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Kathleen Parker offered one way of dealing with the modern world's ubiquitous invasions of privacy: give up. She wrote, "If you don’t want your words broadcast in the public square, don’t say them." Really? Even at home, we have to talk like a White House press spokesman?

She then looked on the bright side by saying "such potential exposure forces us to more carefully select our words and edit our thoughts." Always editing? I'd rather be a Mormon. And that's what we'd all be: Mitt Romney. I would listen to a hundred horrific Cliven Bundy rants if that was the price of living in a world where I could also hear interesting and funny people speak without a filter.

Perhaps most chilling of all, Parker said that "Speaking one’s mind isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be." Which is quite a statement since her job is speaking her mind. It's like the mailman telling you letters are stupid.

So let me get this straight: we should concede that there's no such thing anymore as a private conversation, so therefore, remember to lawyer everything before you say it, and hey, speaking your mind was overrated anyway, so you won't miss it. Well, I'll miss it. I'll miss it a lot. And for the record, speaking my mind is absolutely everything it's cracked up to be. So many things in life have let me down: the iPod Nano, the Spider-Man musical, Al Gore for President, M. Night Shyamalan movies, the entire Eighties, Lance Armstrong, my Scout leader...but speaking my mind? Priceless.

Does everyone really want there to be no place where we can let our hair down and not worry if the bad angel in our head occasionally grabs the mic? What about the bathroom? Not a public bathroom; of course I expect to be taped and photographed in there. But my bathroom at home, would it be okay if that was kind of a cone of silence where I could invite friends in to speak freely? Who wants to live in a world where the only privacy you have is inside your head? That's what life in East Germany was like. That's why we fought the Cold War, remember? so that we wouldn't have to live in some awful limbo where you never knew who, even among your friends, was an informer? And now we're doing it to ourselves.

Well, don't. Don't be part of the problem. If this was a campaign ad, I'd say "call Kathleen Parker, and tell her you're not ready to edit everything you say in private. And then, just to f-ck with her head, tell her you have an audio tape of a book party she gave at her home with five close female friends, all of whom had way too much wine." Because I'm sure there's been that night, and she wouldn't want that tape to come out. Who would? Because we're humans. We're not that good. We're not ready to live in a world where everything has to come out perfectly on the first take. There's a reason houses have doors on them and windows have shades. And if I want to sit in the privacy of my living room and say I think the Little Mermaid is hot and I want to bang her, or I don't like watching two men kiss, or I think tattoos look terrible on black people, I should be able to, even if you think that makes me an @sshole. Now, do I really believe those things? I'm not telling you, because you're not in my living room.

[illwauk]

Except, isn't the entire reason these tapes exist because Donald Sterling himself ordered that everything he say be taped? Not sure how that's a 4th Amendment issue... especially when it wasn't an order of the government for Sterling to get banned from the NBA.

[rams80]

Again, the Constitution regulates your interaction with the government, not your interaction with your fellow Americans. Getting your arse tapped by another person is not unconstitutional, and thank Belldandy for that, because it would cripple whistleblowing.

[The_Admiral]

Except, isn't the entire reason these tapes exist because Donald Sterling himself ordered that everything he say be taped? Not sure how that's a 4th Amendment issue... especially when it wasn't an order of the government for Sterling to get banned from the NBA.

The issue isn't so much Sterling himself -- Maher says as much -- as it is the people shrugging off the whole thing with lines like "you should act as if you're always being recorded and made public," which I believe people have said in this very thread. Maher's obviously coming at this as someone who enjoys using strong language professionally and presumably personally, so I can see where the "words have consequences!" scolds are pissing him off. The piece he's quoting is rather repugnant, one has to admit.

I guess my own perspective is informed somewhat by having screwed around on the internet since I was 11 years old. When you've jousted with people since the days of Usenet, having well preceded the days of Facebook and Twitter, all words don't have to have consequences, not necessarily because they're words we'd simply be afraid to say in real life but just because we'd have no real-life occasion to do so in the first place. A lot of this medium has always been theatre to me and to others. Not that Donald Sterling was playing the character of Crusty Old Bigot, of course, but this sensibility that everyone should always be on their best behavior at all times under penalty of public shaming and life-ruining is kind of troubling. Let's not pretend there isn't a part of the collective American psyche that really gets off on seeing people capital-letters Brought Down, usually before it can happen to them. We're three hundred million crabs in a bucket.

[Gothamite]

The issue isn't so much Sterling himself -- Maher says as much -- as it is the people shrugging off the whole thing with lines like "you should act as if you're always being recorded and made public," which I believe people have said in this very thread.

Yes, but Maher's point is blunted somewhat by the inconvenient fact that Sterling asked to be recorded.

That means he's a little off-base here, trying to force this situation into a role that doesn't fit, to make a larger point that consequently doesn't really work.

You can do what you want in private, but the burden is on you to make godsdamn sure it's actually private. When the spotlight is on, yes, you should be on your best behavior. Even if you're the one who turned on the spotlight. We're not responsible for the fact that what he thought was private wasn't.

That plus the other inconvenient fact that Sterling's bigotry was never confined to private moments, but formed the very foundation of his very public businesses, means he's absolutely the wrong guy to hang a free speech argument on.

[IceCap]

He did ask to be recorded, and he was aware that he was being recorded. I'm pretty sure he asked her to record him to help him with his failing memory. Which doesn't quite mean "release it the press." So in that case? Yeah, there's something to be discussed here. About being able to let your hair down and speak freely with those you consider trustworthy in the privacy of your own home.

Kathleen Parker's piece about people just having to learn to self-censor and like it, even in private, comes dangerously close to advocating Orwell's concept of thoughtcrime. About how the Party teaches its members to stop thoughtcrime at the start so they don't think anything deemed unorthodox. It's not a Fourth Amendment (or Charter) issue because we're talking about interactions between two citizens, not citizens and governments. Still, it's a matter about common decency and the sanctity of one's own home.

Now here's what bugs me. That the above is getting all tied up in the morality of what Donald Sterling actually said. However one chooses to look at the morality of how the tapes were released the end result is clear. They're public. That's that. The NBA shouldn't have to soften its punishment because the remarks were made in the privacy of Sterling's own home. They're a basketball league. The moral grey zone in question doesn't concern them. What does is the fact that despicable, heinous remarks were made by one of their owners and that these remarks are public. The "how?" of it doesn't matter. And nor should it. So all of these people on the right who are saying the NBA shouldn't punish Sterling for remarks made in his own home are missing the point entirely. The remarks are public and the NBA has every right to distance themselves completely from this scumbag.

Is Donald Sterling the man to hang a free speech argument on? No. He's not. He may not be the lowest form of human scum but he's damn close. His racism was evident before this, but this leak exposed it to the vast majority of sports fan who may not have been aware of his past. How the tapes came out is unimportant when compared to the fact that they are public and his beliefs are now widely recognized. Any attempt to minimize what he said with the semantics of how his remarks became public is confusing two issues.

Does that mean Maher's point is blunted then? No. I go back to my first point. No one should be forced to censor themselves in the name of a nebulous concept of moral absolutism when in private. Donald Sterling isn't the man to put at the forefront of a free speech discussion, but that doesn't mean Maher's larger points are somehow invalid.

[Lights Out]

The real reason why the whole public vs. private argument is irrelevant is because Sterling has done far worse things in public.

Most people seem to assume that Sterling's punishment is solely due to this tape. In reality, this tape was just the breaking point after decades of Stern kicking the can down the road. This was his own voice confirming what most had already heard about in legal battles and from second-hand sources. There was no way the league could let it go anymore.

By the way, I agree that the media has gone way too far into Victorian-esque public shaming and life ruination over shockingly minor things. We've reached the point where if you've been falsely accused of something, you might as well have done it, because it'll have the same effect on your life - which is very scary and troubling. That argument, however, simply doesn't apply to this situation.

[Gothamite]

He did ask to be recorded, and he was aware that he was being recorded. I'm pretty sure he asked her to record him to help him with his failing memory. Which doesn't quite mean "release it the press." So in that case? Yeah, there's something to be discussed here. About being able to let your hair down and speak freely with those you consider trustworthy in the privacy of your own home.

Kathleen Parker's piece about people just having to learn to self-censor and like it, even in private, comes dangerously close to advocating Orwell's concept of thoughtcrime. About how the Party teaches its members to stop thoughtcrime at the start so they don't think anything deemed unorthodox. It's not a Fourth Amendment (or Charter) issue because we're talking about interactions between two citizens, not citizens and governments. Still, it's a matter about common decency and the sanctity of one's own home.

...

Is Donald Sterling the man to hang a free speech argument on? No. He's not. He may not be the lowest form of human scum but he's damn close. His racism was evident before this, but this leak exposed it to the vast majority of sports fan who may not have been aware of his past. How the tapes came out is unimportant when compared to the fact that they are public and his beliefs are now widely recognized. Any attempt to minimize what he said with the semantics of how his remarks became public is confusing two issues.

Does that mean Maher's point is blunted then? No. I go back to my first point. No one should be forced to censor themselves in the name of a nebulous concept of moral absolutism when in private. Donald Sterling isn't the man to put at the forefront of a free speech discussion, but that doesn't mean Maher's larger points are somehow invalid.

Of course they are. Because once his use of Sterling as an example has been destroyed, then it's just an interesting hypothetical. A thought experiment. That's why Maher (with whom I am usually in agreement) linked his argument to Sterling in the first place.

Sterling not only asked to have these conversations recorded, he had the recordings made by someone who is being sued over her relationship with him. You didn't have to be a lawyer to see back then that the tapes were going to have to be turned over to his wife's counsel and then entered into the public record. The conversation was never private to begin with.

So we're not talking about anyone who is being "forced to censor themselves in the name of a nebulous concept of moral absolutism when in private". Quite the opposite, actually. Sterling is a lawyer (a sharp one by all accounts), represented by the best legal talent in the country, who said abhorrent things in a conversation only a fee degrees removed from a deposition. He put it on the record, he has to deal with the consequences.

[IceCap]

He did ask to be recorded, and he was aware that he was being recorded. I'm pretty sure he asked her to record him to help him with his failing memory. Which doesn't quite mean "release it the press." So in that case? Yeah, there's something to be discussed here. About being able to let your hair down and speak freely with those you consider trustworthy in the privacy of your own home.

Kathleen Parker's piece about people just having to learn to self-censor and like it, even in private, comes dangerously close to advocating Orwell's concept of thoughtcrime. About how the Party teaches its members to stop thoughtcrime at the start so they don't think anything deemed unorthodox. It's not a Fourth Amendment (or Charter) issue because we're talking about interactions between two citizens, not citizens and governments. Still, it's a matter about common decency and the sanctity of one's own home.

...

Is Donald Sterling the man to hang a free speech argument on? No. He's not. He may not be the lowest form of human scum but he's damn close. His racism was evident before this, but this leak exposed it to the vast majority of sports fan who may not have been aware of his past. How the tapes came out is unimportant when compared to the fact that they are public and his beliefs are now widely recognized. Any attempt to minimize what he said with the semantics of how his remarks became public is confusing two issues.

Does that mean Maher's point is blunted then? No. I go back to my first point. No one should be forced to censor themselves in the name of a nebulous concept of moral absolutism when in private. Donald Sterling isn't the man to put at the forefront of a free speech discussion, but that doesn't mean Maher's larger points are somehow invalid.

Of course they are. Because once his use of Sterling as an example has been destroyed, then it's just an interesting hypothetical. A thought experiment. That's why Maher (with whom I am usually in agreement) linked his argument to Sterling in the first place.

I can't agree with you there. The Kathleen Parker article that's mentioned. It too is tied in with this Sterling case, and it's nonsense. "Speaking one’s mind isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be." Good G-d that's a terrible statement to hear uttered. Made worse because a member of the press is saying it. That she also said "such potential exposure forces us to more carefully select our words and edit our thoughts." I'm sorry. That's practically Orwellian.

So yes. Remove Sterling from the equation. Look at it as "an interesting hypothetical" or a "thought experiment." The idea of self-censorship when you're in private is absolutely ridiculous. Which was Maher's central argument. It's a shame it took a bitter old racist to open up this conversation, but here we are. And that's what I meant when I said there are two issues here. This isn't a defence of Sterling, because he honestly doesn't deserve it. It's a defence of one side of an argument in an interesting hypothetical that we've thought to bring up because of the actions of Donald Sterling.

So as a thought experiment, as an interesting hypothetical, are we better off self-censoring ourselves in private "in the name of a nebulous concept of moral absolutism"? Are we better off self-censoring ourselves, even in private, because "speaking one's mind isn't all it's cracked up to be"?

Sterling not only asked to have these conversations recorded, he had the recordings made by someone who is being sued over her relationship with him. You didn't have to be a lawyer to see back then that the tapes were going to have to be turned over to his wife's counsel and then entered into the public record. The conversation was never private to begin with.

So we're not talking about anyone who is being "forced to censor themselves in the name of a nebulous concept of moral absolutism when in private". Quite the opposite, actually. Sterling is a lawyer (a sharp one by all accounts), represented by the best legal talent in the country, who said abhorrent things in a conversation only a fee degrees removed from a deposition. He put it on the record, he has to deal with the consequences.

I never said anything to the contrary. Hell, I even agreed with that very point. That's what bugs me about this discussion. The question of "should we censor ourselves in private?" has been brought up by the Donald Sterling situation, but they are really two different issues. Yet it seems everyone wants to mix the two together. No, me saying that your average, decent human being shouldn't be forced to censor themselves in the privacy of their own home does not equate to "I believe Donald Sterling shouldn't face the consequences of being a racist pos."

It shouldn't be a position I need to clarify, but here we are.

[The_Admiral]

Most people seem to assume that Sterling's punishment is solely due to this tape. In reality, this tape was just the breaking point after decades of Stern kicking the can down the road.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that when reporters asked Silver whether this was solely due to the tape or the last straw after years of wrongdoing, Silver said it was, in fact, just the tape. That's because Silver is no dummy and understands he can't go on the record saying "yeah we were gunning for him and that sweet Guggenheim money and this seemed like a good opening," i.e., the truth, because that'd be a dynamite way to get your crap pushed in when this goes to court.

[Cosmic]

Most people seem to assume that Sterling's punishment is solely due to this tape. In reality, this tape was just the breaking point after decades of Stern kicking the can down the road.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that when reporters asked Silver whether this was solely due to the tape or the last straw after years of wrongdoing, Silver said it was, in fact, just the tape. That's because Silver is no dummy and understands he can't go on the record saying "yeah we were gunning for him and that sweet Guggenheim money and this seemed like a good opening," i.e., the truth, because that'd be a dynamite way to get your crap pushed in when this goes to court.

It's a pretty safe argument to make that it was just about the tapes because the media picked up on it like crazy and with the way sponsors were bailing, there is/was a very quantifiable way to show that his conduct was "detrimental to the league". Being a racist POS before didn't keep the money from rolling in.

The "censor yourself in private" argument is interesting to have, but for anyone that wants to apply it to Sterling... since when is a MISTRESS considered trustworthy?

[NJTank]

Remember when people said I was paranoid that we were becoming a big brother society without freedom?

I cant believe what Bill Maher said because I figured him to be a cheerleader for the self rightous thought police but bravo it is spot on. Sterling is an and may deserve this, but we may be opening Prandora's Box.

[Soarindude]

Gained some respect for Bill Maher after that. Very well spoken.

[Lee Noire]

Most people seem to assume that Sterling's punishment is solely due to this tape. In reality, this tape was just the breaking point after decades of Stern kicking the can down the road.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that when reporters asked Silver whether this was solely due to the tape or the last straw after years of wrongdoing, Silver said it was, in fact, just the tape. That's because Silver is no dummy and understands he can't go on the record saying "yeah we were gunning for him and that sweet Guggenheim money and this seemed like a good opening," i.e., the truth, because that'd be a dynamite way to get your crap pushed in when this goes to court.

It's a pretty safe argument to make that it was just about the tapes because the media picked up on it like crazy and with the way sponsors were bailing, there is/was a very quantifiable way to show that his conduct was "detrimental to the league". Being a racist POS before didn't keep the money from rolling in.

The "censor yourself in private" argument is interesting to have, but for anyone that wants to apply it to Sterling... since when is a MISTRESS considered trustworthy?

That my friend is the best part about all of this. Not the tape and not his privacy rights. Never in his life has he felt more like a black man in his life than he does now. The stereotypical black man at that. Side chick and all. He dug his grave when he let his wife sue his girlfriend for gifts given to her by him. The old "baby it wasn't me, that girl is lying" routine. Hilarious. So in typical side chick fashion (meaning she realized, the hard way, what her place in his life really was) she felt played by Don so she sought to ruin that man's life.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for Sterling. He was ignorant enough to have those views in 2014 and dumb enough to allow someone to record every word of it. Its only fitting this happened. I'm not saying one should censor themselves at home out of fear of being recorded, but it is a wake up call to those that wish to say harmful, hateful things about other groups of people. Its time to adjust those negative ways of thinking. In my opinion, people that are deathly afraid of folk knowing what they talk about in private probably aren't saying the most positive things about others in those conversations. That's the problem. I don't like the idea of it either, but all I'm saying is should I be recorded you wouldn't find out I secretly hate white people.

[rams80]

Remember when people said I was paranoid that we were becoming a big brother society without freedom?

I cant believe what Bill Maher said because I figured him to be a cheerleader for the self rightous thought police but bravo it is spot on. Sterling is an and may deserve this, but we may be opening Prandora's Box.

"Freedom" and "Liberty" only apply to your interaction with the government Tank. Not with your fellow Americans.

[NJTank]

Should we become an eggshell society afraid to speak in our own home? Sterling got some nasty ass karma for his past misdeeds but there is many questions.

[Gothamite]

Said questions raised largely by those "past misdeeds". That's what made the situation untenable for the NBA - it focused too much attention on business dealings that people ignored when they were new.

To answer your question: in our own homes? No. But when we speak on the public record, yes we should be careful what we say. Sterling in his arrogance seems to have forgotten that.

This was also, it should be pointed out, the first opportunity for the commissioner to do something about Sterling. That shouldn't be undervalued.