Yes. Banned for life assumes no chance of rehabilitation. It’s an absurd overreaction.
Per my earlier question, should Byrd have been banned for life from government? He was much, much worse than this guy. Should the Senate have refused to seat him? This is brought up all the time on this MB by the right wingers and we’re always told that, well, he changed and so it’s OK. Why does this guy not get the chance to change?
This wasn’t a “thought crime”. Sterling was pressuring another person to cut black people out of their social group. Thats something that has I’ll effects in the real world, not just Sterling’s thoughts.
I think your analogy is kind of weak. The right of the people of w Virginia to choose their senate rep is pretty far from an old billionaires right to see live pro basketball.
But sometimes you fuck up enough that people aren’t willing to forgive you. Especially in cases like this, where you’ve already claimed to have been “rehabilitated” before, only to fuck up again.
Plus, its not like the lifetime ban is written in stone somewhere. In the unlikely case that Sterling runs into a burning building to save a black orphan or otherwise convinces the world he’s rehabilitated, I’m sure the NBA is capable of rescinding the ban.
Chance to change? He has a long history of racist comments and (worse) actions. He could have stopped adding to it at any time. As far as Robert Byrd goes- a ban is not necessary when the public has a vote. A former Klansman would never get elected to Congress today.
Actually no, he wasn’t pressuring her to cut black people out of her life. he told her to fuck whoever she wants.
If we’re hanging people for life then what do you do with someone who had a problem with Himeys in NYC or wanted to cut Obama’s balls off? Does he get to go to the games?
Right. He doesn’t want to rent apartments to them or have them at Clippers games or see then on her Instagram feed because … something. That’s all.
Doing what now?
And Senator Bird was a grand wizzard of the KKK. He was just in charge of making laws and stuff.
Your bad at quoting. “Their social group” == “her life”.
" hanging people for life"?
But people who are racist in other contexts should also suffer social consequences. Obviously getting kicked out of basketball games specifically isn’t something that’s universally applicable.
uh… KKK Grand Wizard… United States SENATOR.
I’m not sure what point your trying to make. Mace’s point with Byrd was that people were willing to forgive his racism decades after the fact.
Sterlings racism and the social consequences he’s suffering both postdate the 1940s by a considerable margin.
If Sterling manages not to get caught being a racist asshole for the next 70 years, I certainly think the NBA can revisit his ban.
Its an old boys’ network, just like the owners of the NFL and MLB. You think these guys care about racism? Its playoff time in the NBA and there are hundreds of millions of TV dollars at stake. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sterling got a phone call that went something like this.
“Hello Don?, This is (super confidant representing the owners). How are ya Don?”
Sterling: “Well you know I’m…”
Confidant: “Don, look. You know we’re in the midst of the play-offs and there’s the TV compensation we have to look at. We can’t afford to have the players go on strike.”
Sterling: “Yeah I know, but…”
Confidant: “Look Don, you still own the Clippers, you’re still an owner, so you can understand the concerns of the other owners, can’t you?.”
Sterling: “Yeah but…”
Confidant: “Look, let’s make this easy. Take the hit and if push comes to shove and you have to divest, we’ll put together a group of investors. You paid what, 12 mil for the team? The value of the Clippers, being in L.A, is close to a billion. We won’t leave you hanging, just take the hit.”
Sterling: “Yeah but…”
Click.
John’s point. Banned for life assumes no chance of rehabilitation. It’s an absurd overreaction. Byrd would never have been Senator. Jesse Jackson would be banned from whatever the city of NY could manage to ban him from.
Being banned by the city of new York isn’t a social consequence, its a legal one. There are forms of racism that are subject to legal penalties, for example, housing discrimination. Sterling was guilty of housing discrimination, paid his fine, and that was indeed the end of it.
But for making racist statements, the consequences are purely social. In this case, a private organization has tossed Sterling out.
Its the nature of social consequences that they aren’t going to be standardized. Some places will be quicker to forgive, some won’t ever do so. I don’t think this is particularly problematic, but even if it was, its not really avoidable.
The NBA is saying they aren’t likely to forgive Sterling. The voters of w Virginia apparently did forgive Byrd. Maybe Sterling will live long enough to convince the NBA he deserves a second (or I guess, third) chance. But I don’t have a problem with them making the penalty they decided on not have any expiration date.
Insults are only allowed in the Pit. You’ve been here long enough that you should know that, so consider this a warning for you. Don’t do it again.
Not surprising. The NBA is modern day slavery.
I found the owners statements offensive and disgusting. However, I’m equally disgusted and appalled that a private conversation can be used to destroy someone. How far are we going to take political correctness. Should we bug everybody’s bedroom and make sure they never dare say one word we find offensive? Better yet, lets monitor brainwaves for any inappropriate thoughts while we’re at it.
I could understand banning this guy if he had made these types of bigoted statements in a tv interview or even to a group of people. But a conversation with one person is private. imho
the BBC has a good article questioning the fairness of a lifetime ban. I bolded a statement that struck a chord with me. We do pretend to value independent thought in this country. Unless of course we find that thought incompatible with our own sense of righteousness.
Billionaires like Sterling benefit from almost zero accountability in out society. So long as they keep their mouths shut in private they can act on their reprehensible beliefs and fuck with our lives as much as they want
. If the consequences for Sterling constituted something that actually affected his ability to feed himself and support his family, u might before circumspect, but as it stands Sterling hasn’t really been hurt in any significant way.
So this doesn’t trouble me as much as if Sterling had been electronically monitoring his own employees’ private conversations and firing them on that basis. But people like Sterling are the ones that hold power over all of us. I am comfortable curbing such power in this way.
When a statement becomes public, I think it’s reasonable that private organizations like sports leagues and other businesses might choose to disassociate themselves.
Imagine he had said something even worse – like “Hitler was right – I’m glad those Jews are dead!” (yes, I know he’s Jewish) or “we need to go back to slavery”. Once it becomes public, private organizations may have a legitimate business interest in separating themselves from someone who says such a thing, even though it was in private (at first). The NBA had little choice, from a business perspective, if it concluded that keeping Sterling would cost them serious money.
And by destroy of course you mean “mildly inconvenience” right?
Plus that shot he hit over Craig Ehlo had to hurt.