Again, he was the owner of an NBA team at the time - if Sterling's racist acts outside of the NBA are fair game, so are Jay-Z's (who held a "private" party in a public club). Sterling's comments were private (and Sterling copped to them from jump street, unlike Jay-Z) - only way they surfaced is through illegal means because of the $2 piece of snatch. And no, I won't quit referring to Stiviano like that, as she's every bit the scum that Sterling is and rates the moniker.Mori Chu wrote:I said it isn't possible to "compartmentalize" racism. That is, if you demonstrate clearly racist behavior in one area, it's pretty hard to argue that you are unracist in the rest of your life. That doesn't have anything to do with the Jay-Z thing you brought up. I already said my peace about the Jay-Z thing; he held a private party for his friends, who are black. So what? There's no law saying that somebody has to invite a diverse group of mixed races to come to a private party. Some white guys who were not invited to the private party tried to crash it and were turned away. Of course they were; they were not invited. What is the issue here? It's just a desperate search to try to find an example of a black guy being racist, and it's ridiculous.
There's also no law in the NBA's code of conduct that you can't make racist statements in private, yet that isn't stopping Silver from going after Sterling - where's the same for Jay-Z? That's where your own hypocrisy shows - not even you are willing to go after Jay-Z for doing the same things you're going after Sterling for. Stop with the political correctness, Mori - racism comes in more than one color.
I believe I responded with the last line in my last post that YOU seem to have ignored.Mori Chu wrote:That's fine; perhaps they should not have supported the team or signed to play there. But this latest spat in 2014 really brings it out to the forefront so that everybody can see clearly what Sterling is, even if they didn't follow the past indiscretions. I already said the following in my last message; I'll quote myself. My quote stands. Do you have a response to the following quote, or do you choose to ignore it?
I get the argument of, "He's been a scumbag for years; why not get rid of him before now? Everybody looked the other way." I agree. People should have raised more fuss before now. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't oust him now, now that it's even MORE clear (if that's possible) that this guy is a scumbag. Just because we should have gotten rid of him sooner doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of him now.
Said quote :Next topic:Look - I'm all for Sterling to be gone, but not by underhanded means that sets a dangerous precedent.
I agree with all of that - but, again, not by underhanded means (admitting illegal recordings) that sets a dangerous precedent. And again - I hope he wins his suit because of the hypocrisy, not because I support Sterling. There's no way he should have to pay an arbitrary fine of that or any magnitude ($2.5 million) for making private statements.Mori Chu wrote:No, of course I don't support the NSA. I think I made it clear several times in my last message that I don't support what V. Stiviano did. I also said that the case against Sterling isn't really about that recording, other than the fact that the recording served as a catalyst for other events. It's a small part of a large picture. I never condone the act of violating the privacy of others, and the NSA can rot in hell. No, that does not make me a hypocrite. I just said that I don't support what V. Stiviano did, and my feeling that Sterling needs to go is NOT based on that recording; it's based on Sterling's actions before, during, and after that recording that show a clear pattern of behavior that harms the Clippers and the NBA.Then, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to 'Bone above: So - you're entirely ok with all of the NSA stuff that's been going down, I take it? I bet there's plenty of dirt one could get on you when recorded (and coerced) unknowingly and illegally that could be used against you in one way or another. Hell, all of us, likely.
This point seems to be getting lost repeatedly, so I am going to paste it two more times. I really want everyone to read it.
I don't support what V. Stiviano did, and my feeling that Sterling needs to go is NOT based on that recording; it's based on Sterling's actions before, during, and after that recording that show a clear pattern of behavior that harms the Clippers and the NBA.
I don't support what V. Stiviano did, and my feeling that Sterling needs to go is NOT based on that recording; it's based on Sterling's actions before, during, and after that recording that show a clear pattern of behavior that harms the Clippers and the NBA.
Seriously, watch the guy's Anderson Cooper interview. He's a walking disaster. He greatly harms the NBA every day he's still associated with the league. And his agreement as an owner is that he can get voted out if he harms the league. So he needs to go.
I say if the NBA is instigating proceedure to remove him, fine - let the NBA compensate him for his team, which, according to various reports I've seen, is valued between $550 million and $750 million.
Less the $2.5 million "fine", of course.
See my response to this in my first paragraph above.....Mori Chu wrote:Sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing about it. Argumentum ad hominem means "argument to the person," in other words, discrediting someone's argument by attacking them on a personal level. I was saying that your "$2 piece of snatch" comment was an unnecessary personal attack on V. Stiviano. She's slimy for recording him, but slut-shaming her and calling her a prostitute is not necessary. Who knows what she did/didn't do for Sterling; it doesn't really matter.
~ 
