I should have typed 70%.
No, but our society and Atlanta isn’t 70% black, either; the demographics cited for Hawks game.
The email cites 40% as Levenson’s guess, very close to the actual demographics of the area.
Hmmm, odd, the CNN article said seventy percent; maybe they erred.
The article just has a snippet. From the actual email:
OK, I stand corrected.
You’d think so, wouldn’t ya. I sure would. But that ain’t what happened in LA. The Clippers went for 2 BILLION DOLLARS!!! The team was valued by Forbes at 575 million. Which may have been all he woulda got if there hadn’t been a shit storm chasing him out the door.
BTW, current value of the Hawks 425 million.
You didn’t answer his question at all. Anyway we already know a lot about why this made the news, and none of it has to do with Levenson wanting to sell. It’s about a different member of the ownership group being pissed off.
The Forbes valuations are always wrong in cases like this because they are not estimates of what a team is actually likely to sell for. Forbes is valuing the franchises as if they were any other business: their annual revenues are X, their operating costs are Y, and their assets include A, B, and C; therefore the team is “worth” approximately $Z.
But sports franchises aren’t like regular businesses; they’re actually more akin to great works of art*. You don’t buy a Monet because it’s going to make you a lot of money (though it may actually do that on resale) – you buy it because a Monet is a fucking amazing thing to own, and there aren’t many to go around. It’s the same way with a major sports franchise. You are paying for it’s ability to earn annual profit and for it’s expected increase in resale value, but on top of that you’re paying a big premium for the fun and prestige of owning it.
- – Not my metaphor. (This talks more about the idea.)
That doesn’t answer my question. I’m not questioning that you “get to” say something. My question was:
Then I don’t think I understand the question. What I gain is the ability to use the word in a way that is more accurate. Accuracy is better than inaccuracy and it promotes better understanding and better discussion.
I thought it was clear from the email that he did not agree with his racist white customers.
Also, if Danny Ferry should be fired, I guess every teacher and professor I’ve ever had should be fired and suspended and most of the kids in all my high school English classes should have been expelled. Since when is quoting a passage with offensive language an offensive act? I expect a little more thinking going on here.
No, he does not agree with them. The problem is that he’s willing to downplay and cut out the black customers who have supported his team so he can play into the supposed prejudices of these people.
He’s not a literature professor quoting Huckleberry Finn. He’s an executive who was making a presentation in the boardroom. He was discussing a player the company was thinking about pursuing. If you said something like this in a presentation to your bosses, you would be in a lot of trouble even if you were quoting someone else. The first questions you would get are the same ones Ferry is getting: “Do you agree with what you quoted?” and “If you don’t agree, why the hell didn’t you edit it out of your materials?” I don’t think he needs to be fired, but I want to see a real investigation into who said this to the Hawks. Are there NBA scouts or executives who regularly say this kind of bigoted nonsense when they’re evaluating players? These guys have players’ jobs in their hands.
No you don’t gain the ability to use the word. You have that. You can use that word anyway you’d like, as you can use any other word. The question is what do you gain by using it more liberally? And conversely, what do you lose by not using it more in the way that I, Shodan and others would agree with you?
Please answer that. I mean, you must have a reason, no?
As far as your claim that your using it in a way that is MORE accurate is just plain wrong. You’re arguing being able to use it in instances where lots of people would disagree that your usage is appropriate. by restricting usage to instances where you’d have have near unanimous agreement could arguably be considered “more accurate” usage. But claiming that your more liberal “may be correct, may be incorrect” creates “more accurate” usage simply makes no sense.
I have nothing else to say here. I’m not throwing the word around for pleasure or anything. I’m using it because I think it’s the correct word for what I’m describing. Obviously the point is not just that I personally use the word more often, but that people agree with its application after a reasoned discussion of what it means.
It’s the converse of the answer I’ve already given you. If you call something by the wrong name, you’re not calling it by the right one. I do think it’s important to identify racist statements for what they are, since in general racists try pretty hard to obscure what they’re doing and they have a vested interest in stopping people from calling them racists. You obviously want me to say something else, so maybe you should just make up the answer you want.
Of course it’s more accurate. Anyway you’re hardly unbiased on this subject. I know you hate being called out on your prejudices, but tough shit.
You’ve used to many modifiers here that you’ve said nothing at all.
To sum up, there’s no reason to try so hard to avoid using the word racist. It can be used to describe a few different things, and the use of racial slurs or the open hatred of other races are only two of those things. It’s part of the picture but not the whole picture.
No, you are using it in an attempt to shut off discussion on a point that is trending against you. Simply labelling any point that is irrefutably true as ‘racist’ is a lazy man’s argument, and it’s counter-productive.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Nobody said hiring some white cheerleaders and changing the background music was discriminating against black people.
[/QUOTE]
Well, actually…
[QUOTE=Marley23]
What you’re saying, essentially, is that it’s OK for Levenson to discriminate against black people if he’s doing it based only on money and not race. I’ll say that’s debatable and leave it at that. Actually I will point out again that he’s the one who framed this in terms of race.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
His desire to make money wasn’t a based on data, it was a crude and inexact racial discrimination.
[/QUOTE]
:shrugs: Wave your hands hard enough, and no true Scotsman accuses Levenson of racism because he wants to attract a more affluent demographic.
Actually the whole list in context is as follow:
At this point you are simply lying - there is no reasonable way to read the
‘fathers and sons’ reference as being anything except an observation of Levenson’s about race, just like every other point in the list, and for which I gave a couple of irrefutable cites showing that Levenson’s observation was likely to be accurate. You labeled that observation as racist. Fine. Levenson and Obama are filthy, despicable racists.
And nobody who posts this -
[QUOTE=Marley23]
It’s so awesome that racism isn’t a thing anymore! By the way, if something looks like racism, it’s definitely not. Because racism is over.
[/QUOTE]
has any right in the world to say this -
[QUOTE=Marley23]
You obviously want me to say something else, so maybe you should just make up the answer you want.
[/QUOTE]
Regards,
Shodan
The Hawks ownership group gets along about as well as a mongoose and a cobra. One wonders how they ever got together in the first place. Some partners have wanted to sell for a long time while others refused. Now this little opportunity pops up and the partner(s) that want to sell see it as a way to force the others along, so they make the comments and emails public. Presto! The team is on the auction block.
Ferry is in charge of the scouting department. So if he’s not in trouble for quoting the passage, he should be in trouble for not disciplining the scout.
To get precise about it, the team isn’t on the auction block. It’s just Levenson’s share, but it’s true that a buyer could make offers to the other partners.
To be even more precise, we don’t know if anyone’s share is actually for sale yet, only that Levenson said he would sell. Someone asked for a scenario where this issue would make the team saleable where it wasn’t before, I gave one.