• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

well said, Kareem (Donald Sterling discussion thread)

devi8 said:
I don't think he ever defended Sterling, just stated that white people do not have a monopoly on racism.
Click to expand...

Nobody thinks white people have a monopoly on racism. It's just that racism/bigotry is WAY more damaging (and thus, significant) when it comes from people who wield significant power. And typically, the people who wield significant power in this country are white. That's why it gets a lot more media attention when it comes from a powerful white person
 
well said, Kareem

I consider racism more of a systemic power structure problem that just bigotry/hate, that makes it a pretty white, or generally dominate group, problem.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I don't understand the difference. Sponsors pulled out. Players threatened action. Fans threatened action. The league responded to the free market.
Click to expand...

The league used a cannon in response to a morally repulsive private comment! There is a time for using a cannon;but a private comment is not it...even though the comment was ignorant and offensive. A strong rebuke and financial fine would have been appropriate in the immediate; but then allow the public to express itself in the market place.

What more can the league do if an owner actually committed a hate crime and killed someone? As a league, there is nothing more that they could do!
 
mebanedeac said:
The league used a cannon in response to a morally repulsive private comment! There is a time for using a cannon;but a private comment is not it...even though the comment was ignorant and offensive. A strong rebuke and financial fine would have been appropriate in the immediate; but then allow the public to express itself in the market place.

What more can the league do if an owner actually committed a hate crime and killed someone? As a league, there is nothing more that they could do!
Click to expand...

Why would they need to have an escalating penalty? Let criminal courts deal with that level of justice. When you have an owner that will cost other owners money (which is a reality here), you remove them. Seems pretty straightforward.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I don't understand the difference. Sponsors pulled out. Players threatened action. Fans threatened action. The league responded to the free market.
Click to expand...


Yep. The NBA certainly won the battle. The only question is who is next and on what grounds. That's what is missed in this.

And, you really need to understand the concept of "free market". The NBA is NOT a free market. No one ever said it was. It's a club of 30 owners. It's not a free market.

A free market would have allowed "the market" to no longer buy Sterling's product and force him to sell to salvage some profit or to allow the situation to subside. A club of 30 billionaires who vote out other members is not a free market.

There's no excuse for Sterling or his actions. None. But, please be correct with facts.
 
coredeac said:
Yep. The NBA certainly won the battle. The only question is who is next and on what grounds. That's what is missed in this.

And, you really need to understand the concept of "free market". The NBA is NOT a free market. No one ever said it was. It's a club of 30 owners. It's not a free market.

A free market would have allowed "the market" to no longer buy Sterling's product and force him to sell to salvage some profit or to allow the situation to subside. A club of 30 billionaires who vote out other members is not a free market.

There's no excuse for Sterling or his actions. None. But, please be correct with facts.
Click to expand...

It's inherently not just Sterling's product. It's Sterling's cog in the wheel of the NBA product. Lost ratings and revenues hurt the 29 other franchises.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Why would they need to have an escalating penalty? Let criminal courts deal with that level of justice. When you have an owner that will cost other owners money (which is a reality here), you remove them. Seems pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are right. But there appears to have been evidence of racially prejudiced actions by Sterling before this. If so, why didn't the league hammer the actions? The actions seem to have been more harmful than the words.

Perhaps it was a situation of the "final straw". Again, I am good with Sterling being out of the league and publicly shamed, however.
 
mebanedeac said:
Perhaps you are right. But there appears to have been evidence of racially prejudiced actions by Sterling before this. If so, why didn't the league hammer the actions? The actions seem to have been more harmful than the words.

Perhaps it was a situation of the "final straw". Again, I am good with Sterling being out of the league and publicly shamed, however.
Click to expand...

Because David Stern is/was a huge prick.
 
coredeac said:
Yep. The NBA certainly won the battle. The only question is who is next and on what grounds. That's what is missed in this.

And, you really need to understand the concept of "free market". The NBA is NOT a free market. No one ever said it was. It's a club of 30 owners. It's not a free market.

A free market would have allowed "the market" to no longer buy Sterling's product and force him to sell to salvage some profit or to allow the situation to subside. A club of 30 billionaires who vote out other members is not a free market.

There's no excuse for Sterling or his actions. None. But, please be correct with facts.
Click to expand...

However, if the free market threatened the profitability of the collective product, would not the "club" have been forced to take action?
 
Wouldn't the "free market" solution have had a lot more collateral damage in terms of financially & competitively harming players and coaches who did nothing wrong?
 
mebanedeac said:
However, if the free market threatened the profitability of the collective product, would not the "club" have been forced to take action?
Click to expand...


I fucking give up. Sure. Yep. You're all over it! Twenty nine owners voting out the thirtieth is a classic example of free markets!!!

I'll give you a slight hint. The free market (as in FREE) was never allowed to decide or act in this situation because it NEVER went to market for that decision to be made. But, God forbid facts get in the way of a good story.
 
VaDeac said:
Wouldn't the "free market" solution have had a lot more collateral damage in terms of financially & competitively harming players and coaches who did nothing wrong?
Click to expand...

Not to mention other people whose businesses are connected to the NBA.

I really don't understand how mebane and others don't understand that this is a free market response. Why wait for things to get even worse before making a move?

I sense a lot of fear coming from people who think this is the "thought police" coming to destroy hard working white men and not a free market response approved by hard working mostly white men who run the other 29 teams.
 
coredeac said:
I fucking give up. Sure. Yep. You're all over it! Twenty nine owners voting out the thirtieth is a classic example of free markets!!!

I'll give you a slight hint. The free market (as in FREE) was never allowed to decide or act in this situation because it NEVER went to market for that decision to be made. But, God forbid facts get in the way of a good story.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being dumb. What do you think fan and sponsor reaction is if not the free market?
 
coredeac said:
I fucking give up. Sure. Yep. You're all over it! Twenty nine owners voting out the thirtieth is a classic example of free markets!!!

I'll give you a slight hint. The free market (as in FREE) was never allowed to decide or act in this situation because it NEVER went to market for that decision to be made. But, God forbid facts get in the way of a good story.
Click to expand...

Every sponsor associated with the Clippers pulled their money. The free market was allowed to decide
 
Is this kindergarten? Sponsor money was naturally going away and it will ebb back now that Sterling is gone. Corporations manage image. It's that simple. But they will be back in a heartbeat after this decision. We are talking the LA market here.
 
This may be difficult for you to believe PhDeac but I could not care less about protecting elitist wealthy white guys and their fortunes. And,I hate racism...believe it or not.

However the "thought police" is another thing. You should be as concerned about that as I am. As long as the "thought police" share your ideology it is easy to excuse; but when they stand in determined opposition to your ideology and perspective it is another thing entirely. Policing thoughts and words should be repulsive to us all.

That said, I can see the legitimacy of Mr. Sterling's "club" exercising its own law to deal with one of its members. They were protecting their common interest and property.
 
coredeac said:
I fucking give up. Sure. Yep. You're all over it! Twenty nine owners voting out the thirtieth is a classic example of free markets!!!

I'll give you a slight hint. The free market (as in FREE) was never allowed to decide or act in this situation because it NEVER went to market for that decision to be made. But, God forbid facts get in the way of a good story.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
Now you're just being dumb. What do you think fan and sponsor reaction is if not the free market?
Click to expand...

Just spitballing here, but I think what Core and others mean by "let the free market decide", is that Silver should let the Clippers lose so much value that Sterling is forced to sell the team himself. What Core is failing to recognize though, is that NBA franchises are not wholly independent of each other, and thus the other 29 owners have removed Sterling to prevent their franchises from losing value as well.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
Just spitballing here, but I think what Core and others mean by "let the free market decide", is that Silver should let the Clippers lose so much value that Sterling is forced to sell the team himself. What Core is failing to recognize though, is that NBA franchises are not wholly independent of each other, and thus the other 29 owners have removed Sterling to prevent their franchises from losing value as well.
Click to expand...

Oh I think that's exactly what they mean which is ridiculous for the reasons you state.

I think the bigger thing people don't realize is the powder keg of NBA players uniting to take action with support from 99% of their fans. Silver and the owners had to avoid that at all cost.

Was that a SterlingOUT t-shirt at the game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top