Racism

Should NBA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling be Fired for Racist Remarks? Scheduled to Get NAACP Award on May 15

|

TMZ has released audio of the owner of the NBA's Los Angeles Clippers franchise, Donald Sterling, making racist comments in a conversation with a former girlfriend (click above to listen). It's not immediately clear how the tape surfaced, though its provenance almost surely involves the ex-gal pal. As TMZ summarizes the contents:

L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling told his GF he does NOT want her bringing black people to his games … including Magic Johnson … and it's ALL on tape.

TMZ Sports has obtained audio of Sterling making the racist declaration during a heated argument on April 9th with V. Stiviano … after she posted a photo on Instagram posing with Magic. 

Sterling rails on Stiviano—who ironically is black and Mexican—for putting herself out in public with a black person (she has since taken the pic down).  But it doesn't end there.  You have to listen to the audio to fully grasp the magnitude of Sterling's racist worldview. Among the comments:

– "It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to?" (3:30) 

– "You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want.  The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games." (5:15)

– "I'm just saying, in your lousy f******* Instagrams, you don't have to have yourself with, walking with black people." (7:45)

– "…Don't put him [Magic] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me.  And don't bring him to my games." (9:13)

Sterling has a documented history of allegedly racist behavior—he's been sued twice by the federal government for allegedly refusing to rent apartments to Blacks and Latinos. 

He was also sued by former Clippers exec Elgin Baylor for racial discrimination—though a jury was ultimately not convinced and shot down Baylor's case.  

Sterling has been separated from his wife Shelly for years.  She remains a key player in running the team and sources tell us she's "mortified" by Sterling's comments.

We have made several calls to Sterling and his people … so far, no word back. 

Mediaite is an excellent one-stop shop for more analysis and feedback. The Clippers official press office has suggested the audio is not legit, the NBA has held a press conference on the matter, and various celebrities, ranging from current Clippers players to Snoop Lion to former NBA great Charles Barkley have weighed in (calling Sterling a "jackass," he also noted, "We cannot have an owner discriminating against a league that—we're a black league…. We are a black league."). Magic Johnson, who is specifically discussed in the tape, has said that he won't attend a Clippers game until Sterling is gone.

Mediaite also offers up a "comprehensive guide to how pro sports have punished team owners before."

The New York Times reports this too:

In 2009, Mr. Sterling paid $2.725 million to settle a housing discrimination suit brought by the Justice Department, which accused him of systematically driving African-Americans, Latinos and families with children out of the apartment buildings he owned. In the settlement, Mr. Sterling did not admit wrongdoing.

Mr. Sterling was also sued unsuccessfully over accusations of racial discrimination by the Clippers' former longtime general manager, Elgin Baylor.

The N.B.A. has not previously disciplined Mr. Sterling, who bought the Clippers in 1981.

On May 15, Mr. Sterling is scheduled to be honored by the Los Angeles chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. with a lifetime achievement award.

Are Sterling's comments truly awful and deeply disturbing? Yes. Do they bring embarassament and scorn upon not only the Clippers but the NBA? Yes. Were they made in a private, intimate conversation between an 80-something-year-old man and his decades-younger ladyfriend that never should have seen the light of day? Yes.

courtesy Mozilla

Here's a question for those of us who remember the long-ago (read: two weeks) controversy over short-term Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich getting bounced for having donated to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative: Assuming the tape is legit, does it make sense for the NBA to can Sterling?

And if so, how is this different from the issues surrounding Eich's ouster from Mozilla?

I fully sympathize with worries that people's personal lives and personal sentiments (even truly vile ones) will be used to punish them in ways that don't really concern the workplace. And let's be clear: That sort of sniping is far more likely to affect people well below the CEO or ownership level.

But in each of these cases, there are at least two issues that seem similar and worth discussing in tandem.

First, within the company or organization itself, the CEO/owner behavior is upsetting to a significant portion of the workforce. Eich's Mozilla colleagues expressed problems with his stance on Prop. 8 in a way that may or may not have impaired his ability to lead the company. Sterling's comments have roiled the Clippers locker room, not to mention members of the league (it's never fully clear when it comes to sports leagues whether the proper unit of analysis is a single team or the larger league).

Second, there's a serious public-relations issue. Companies that have a particular organizational philosophy and clientele can withstand fallout from mission-based decisions or revelations. Hence, neither Hobby Lobby nor Chik-fil-A has paid much of a price for sticking to their guns regarding corporate stances on birth-control mandates or having a CEO who has made anti-gay comments.

Whether Mozilla could have handled the Eich controversy differently is a question worth asking. By all accounts, Eich was a hugely important asset to the organization and it isn't hard to spitball ways that the Mozilla could have used the controversy as some sort of teachable moment for employees and users alike. That may have been the best way forward not simply for Mozilla but for larger society. Within pretty broad limits, I think most of us can agree that separating work and non-work beliefs, attitudes, and activities is a very good idea.

With Sterling, it's hard to see any way forward but giving him the boot. While the Clippers have clinched a playoff berth, it is not a marquee franchise of the sort that will get any sort of pass from fans, league officials, or other teams. 

In the wake of the Eich flap, I wrote a piece for Time that acknowledged the "era of politically correct web browsing" was not without serious concerns. But in the end, Eich's dismissal made sense given a variety of factors. Some who defended Eich, including many advocates of gay marriage, did so explicitly on the grounds that opposing marriage equality isn't the same as being racist. I don't think I agree with that, but I can see the point. I'm sure that if Sterling has any defenders, some of them will say that regardless of what he thinks about his ex-girlfriend's Instagram preferences, the guy is also paying his top three players (all black) over $54 million in 2013-14 alone.

More important, these sorts of controversies are only going to multiply for reasons that aren't going away anytime soon:

Now that we're well past a subsistence economy, we live in a world of largely symbolic exchange, where we don't simply choose something because we're hungry or naked but because we want to make a statement about what sort of person we are, what sort of taste we possess and what sort of values we share.

Related: "Did Woody Allen Molest His Daughter, Dylan Farrow? And If So, Should You Disavow His Films?"

NEXT: Cody Wilson and the 3-D Printed Gun

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The problem here is that it was a private conversation. If Sterling had said this in an interview or to an employee, Nick’s case would be more compelling. Instead we have someone being fired for something they said in private to their girlfriend.

    The progs’ goal is to make it efectively impossible to say unapproved things even in private without risking your job and livelyhood. They have spent 60 years accomplishing this with racial speech. They have almost accomplished the same thing in 20 years with homosexuality. They will move on to something else and always make the society less tolerant of their enemies.

    Nick has such a personal affinity for progs and prog culture he let’s it blind him to where this is going. He just sees someone he doesn’t like getting theirs. I don’t like Sterling either but if they can doit to himabout this, they can and will eventualky do it to a lot of other people for a lot of other things. Sad Nick either doesn’t understand that or likes the idea.

    1. Cons goal is to keep minorities in their place as hired help or isolated where they can’t mix the upper caste.

      A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’
      William F. Buckley, Jr.

      1. BUSHPIG!!

        Go fuck yourself you fascist littel retard. You are exactly the sort of creature that we are talking about. Your entire purpose in life is to go around and shit on internet boards you don’t like and do your best to ensure that no opinion that is not approved by the Progs ever gets a hearing.

        You devote your entire pathetic life to shutting down views you don’t like. You and Tony are exactly the sorts of animals that turn societies into nightmares. Everyone here knows what you are. Some ignore you. Some like me waste are time calling you what you are even though everyone knows it.

        1. “Your entire purpose in life is to go around and shit on internet boards you don’t like”

          John, you are the one criticizing Reason and Nick.

          1. Gee Bo comes on and makes a completely irrelevant point and will now spend the next 30 posts obscuring the thread in a pointless and stupid semantic argument.

            Troll somewhere else Bo. Your act has gotten tiresome.

            1. John, if you are going to accuse PB of dumping on sites he does not like then do not be so whiney when it is pointed out that you are regularly more critical of the articles and writers here, in fact you were doing so here to begin with.

              You are an admitted conservative Republican and you call Nick out for being ‘biased.’ Ever considered that that might say more about your biases than his?

              1. You can debate with yourself until you make a cogent point.

                1. Goodness knows I can’t wait for you to make one

                  1. Ok, I’ll bite. You, a fucking retard, repeatedly accuse John of the following as your basis for shitting everywhere and insisting you’re not a fucking idiot.

                    John, if you are going to accuse PB of dumping on sites he does not like

                    John accused PB of dumping on this site

                    If anything John attacks the site, libertarians and the writers more.

                    Here, you make it clear that you are fucking stupid and misread John’s comment as accusing PB of dumping on the site, the important part of which I will quote for you now

                    John, to PB

                    “Your entire purpose in life is to go around and shit on internet boards you don’t like and do your best to ensure that no opinion that is not approved by the Progs ever gets a hearing.

                    John’s accusation is that PB shit’s on the boards in order to stiflle discussion. You clearly, and irrefutably misread that as John accusing PB of dumping on the site itself, and the writers, as part of a philosophical disagreement.

                    This entire divergence is your fault because you have shitty reading comprehension.

                    1. The fact is that I am in near unanimity with Reason writers. The only one I often disagree with is David Harsanyi (who writes at the Washington Times and is a paleo-conservative).

                      Of course there are a number of commentors who are conservative squatters here. Yes, we do clash.

                    2. “The fact is that I am in near unanimity with Reason writers.”

                      Except when they write about the ACA, the increasing deficit, the and the need to cut anything from the budget.

                      No one here thinks you’re any sort of a libertarian. John does not constantly disagree with Reason writers. You have a hate fetish on Bush and conservatives, and you’ll occasionally masquerade as a libertarian to appear more centrist.

                    3. Increasing deficit?

                      Obama has cut the deficit in half!

                      The debt is increasing for sure even if it is just a dollar a year. That is the problem with you morons – you deny math and science.

                      On the ACA – it broke up a cartel and on the whole is bad policy 60% bad 40% good lets say.

                      I do depart with libertarian dogma on the Fed though – nothing else.

                    4. Lol. “What do you mean I oppose everything libertarians favor? Look at all this copypasta I have to prove you right!”

                    5. “Obama has cut the deficit in half!”

                      Link?

                      “On the ACA – it broke up a cartel and on the whole is bad policy 60% bad 40% good lets say.”

                      What cartel did it break? The insurance companies?

                      Funny stuff.

                    6. In fiscal 2013, which ended Sept. 30, the deficit was $680.276 billion, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released Wednesday.

                      In fiscal 2012, the deficit was $1.089193 trillion; in fiscal 2011, it was $1.296791 trillion; in fiscal 2010, it was $1.294204 trillion; and, in fiscal 2009, it was $1.415724 trillion.

                      In fiscal 2008, the last full year that George W. Bush was president, the deficit was $454.798 billion.

                    7. Obama cut the deficit in half, huh? So, if I total your car and then buy you a used replacement do I get to trumpet to the world that I just gave you a car because I’m such a good guy? Besides which, the deficit happened to drop when the CBO changed its budget prediction methodologies. It also wasn’t influenced by the aspects of the ACA that Obama unilaterally suspended, which would’ve resulted in higher spending. Even the CBO predicts that Medicare/caid will dramatically increase the deficit.

                      Guess when.

                      2016.

          2. “John, you are the one criticizing Reason and Nick.”

            I wasn’t aware that Reason, and Nick are above criticism.

            1. You also were unaware of my point then.

              It is not that they are above criticism, but John accused PB of dumping on this site in a sub thread begun with…John dumping on this site.

              1. I know I shouldn’t bother arguing with you, but it should be clear to anyone who actually reads the comments on this site that there is a world of difference between John and PB.

                1. If anything John attacks the site, libertarians and the writers more. If you want to give him ‘props’ for being open about it, I guess I can agree on that.

                  I mean, don’t you get sick of the whole ‘Cosmos! wants to be invited to liberal Cocktailz parties! in bed with Team Blue!” Criticisms of the writers (and our hosts) by people who clearly are not interested in being consistent libertarians? Of course Reason writers are not as Right as those guys, because they are libertarians, not conservatives! Go ‘hang out’ somewhere else or stop whining about it.

            2. The point is that John is constantly at odds with Reason and its writers.

              For some reason they won’t come around to his arch-conservative worldview and his nagging is of little effect.

              1. Don’t you have an ass to fill somewhere?

                PS: BUSHPIGCHRISTFAGSHREEKYWANKDILLSTICK

              2. No, he’s not. YOU are.

      2. Re:Peter Caca,

        Cons goal is to keep minorities in their place as hired help or isolated where they can’t mix the upper caste.

        If that was really the Cons goal, then they’re already too late: the liberals upstaged them by keeping the minorities in their place through welfarism, licensing laws and zoning laws – see Oakland vs San Francisco.

      3. Cons goal is to keep minorities in their place as hired help or isolated where they can’t mix the upper caste.

        Compared to progs who built and continue to defend the drug war that incarcerates and stigmatizes generations of black men? Compared the same leftists in your beloved entertainment media that glorifies (to the black person) murder, theft, and the ability to entertain (with a ball or a microphone) white people as the sole keys to wealth and success?

      4. “Cons goal is to keep minorities in their place as hired help or isolated where they can’t mix the upper caste.”

        The progressive goal is to strip us of our individual rights by almost any means necessary.

        Anyone else notice that the BLM Bundy story suddenly went out the window once they got him on tape saying something racist?

        I’ve got news for all the progressives out there–racists have rights, too! So do murderers and rapists. There isn’t anything in the Constitution (or good sense) that says once someone is found to be a racist, their rights don’t matter anymore.

        I think what this Clippers guy said–if he really said it–is pathetic and disgusting, too. But the problem is that the progressives out there want to use this stuff to start some American version of the Cultural Revolution.

        They want everyone with money in this country to get up in front of the proletariat and confess their racist, sexist, homophobic sins.

        …and the problem with progressives is that–by definition–they can’t tell the difference between the public doing this to somebody and the government doing the same thing.

        Obama would love to have the government police people like this.

        What I think about whether someone with a private employer is interesting in an academic way, but if everything I say about that is going to be used to further some sick, progressive Cultural Revolution, then the progressives (and President Barack Obama, can all go fuck themselves.

        1. Truth

          1. what sterling said was not racist on its face.

            Going out of your way to identify as black is disgusting.

            everyone knows what a wigger is.

            whether he was telling his girlfriend to quit being unauthentic is ambiguous. But to flat out call his comments racist is just ignorant.

            He didn’t say she shouldn’t be friends with blacks, he said she should not make a point of doing so.

            Its like mitt romney’s kid adopting a black baby.

            i find it reprehensible to live in a society where the majority of celbrities immediately call him racist and assume his words were racist. on their face they are not.

      5. I see Shriek is older but no wiser

    2. Right, exactly — although it allegations about business practices regarding a refusal to rent apartments to blacks and Latinos are true, that is a different matter.

      The other thing is, neither Eich nor the Chik-Fil-A guy acted in a personally untoward way like Sterling. Neither of them appear to have a personal issue with their employees or family; they were hounded purely for their political expression. It would be more akin to Sterling having been discovered donating to a racist candidate or Storefront; the situations are not very analogous.

      1. I think IT is spot on here, the situations just are not analogous.

        1. Sterling should have raped a girl like Roman Polanksi did, and then the chattering classes would be defending him.

          1. BOOM – headshot!

          2. Well only if he fled to France and Republicans criticized him for his comments. At that point Democrats would rally around their own and claim that Republican’s are far more racist than Democrat billionaires are, so what does it matter anyway?

      2. The Immaculate Trouser covers part of it, but there’s more. Eich was a founder and valuable commodity at Mozilla, whereas what does it matter who owns what team?

        Also, Eich is on one side of controversial, roughly 50/50 issue. Blackballing people on one side of that sort of divide is hugely divisive in a society. It’s not at all analogous to racism: what percentage of Americans defend it?

        And I wish Nick saw beyond the “Some Mozilla employees were uncomfortable” thing. #1: Many LGBT Mozilla employees did not want Eich to leave, but of course the media was not interested in talking to them. #2. So what? Some people are “uncomfortable” with Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, gays, whatever. I don’t want “Someone is uncomfortable with X’s privately expressed political belief” to be the litmus test for employment.

    3. 1.) Given any public profile, assume anything you say is recorded (cf. Mel Gibson).
      2.) Make sure the brain is engaged before putting your mouth in motion. Saying things that completely disrespect your workforce are best left in your brain and not in someone else’s ear.
      3.) Seeing that the first two points were ignored and resulted in this situation, it’s time to leave. The man’s mouth has now made the situation toxic and no one is going to want to work for someone that openly disrespect them. The situation will not get better until he leaves. The league is around 80% black, and he has now become a pariah in the sport. There is no coming back from this.

  2. For all practical purposes, organized basketball leagues (yeah, I know, nonprofit) are businesses. They have to keep their customers happy, meaning they have to look carefully at what their employees do.

    I notice the remark about “we’re a black league…. We are a black league.” In a different media climate, that remark would have been as controversial as Sterling’s.

    In a different media climate, the fact that Sterling has both a wife and a girlfriend would be controversial.

    It all depends on what gets the public riled up and threatens the bottom line.

    But they need to worry about the media climate they have, not the one they wish to have.

    1. I think the “we are a black league” is just a statement of largely fact-75% of the players are black, while Sterlings comments are more of a normative nature.

      1. Hey about 70% of the United States is white. Could I say we’re a white country, and get away with it? Or are different people being held to different standards because of race?

      2. Yet, you never hear the NHL say we’re a ‘white league.’

        1. ‘We’re a white league.’

  3. I imagine all the TEAM BLUE politicians who took his money will give it back now, too – yes?

    1. We’re not supposed to notice that part.

    2. Like who?

      I checked his FEC record and it was blank. I used “Donald Sterling”.

      1. He’s an old Democratic donor, with little activity since the early 1990s.

        He also gives money to the NAACP which has him slated for a lifetime achievement award.

        1. One donation in the early 90s – Gray Davis CA Gov.

          (Bill Bradley was NBA related).

          He is about as apolitical as a billionaire can be if the Bush/Obama partisan wars didn’t get him out.

          1. And what did I say? Little activity since the early 1990.

            I don’t know where you get your information about being apolitical unless you presume to be able to read his mind.

            However, to be fair, the conservative blogs have been continuously branding this guy as a big Democratic donor. I haven’t seen evidence of that but it shows you the dangerous game that the Proggies play whenever branding Republicans or Libertarians as “racists” or “bigots” the moment some random bigot says something.

            1. Oh, the wingnut blogs? That is where our ‘Swiss Servator’ hangs out then.

              1. Yeah, the wingnut blogs that exposed him as a democrat who donated money to democrats.

                If Rand Paul made one time donation Leland Yee….. well, why even bother asking.

  4. According to the hysterical race-baiters on NBC right now, he should be burned at the stake.

    1. Let me guess…they’re putting his political affiliations down the memory hole?

  5. For racist guy, he sure pays his black players the big bucks.

    1. Well that is a recent phenomenon. For years he was known as being on of the stingiest owners.

      1. And of course his players make him a lot of money

    2. It’s almost as though he knows that practicing discrimination in the workplace would hurt the performance of his team as well as his bottom line.

      If only there were some political philosophy that highlighted the anti-discriminatory nature of markets.

    3. For racist guy, he sure pays his black players the big bucks.

      Just camouflage for his RACISS……

  6. Are Sterling’s comments truly awful and deeply disturbing? Yes.

    Am I the only person who doesn’t find the comments (to the extent we’ve heard all there are) particularly awful and disturbing? What they sound like to me is an old white man with a hot mixed-race girlfriend, who’s threatened by black men and what he thinks it says about his virility for his woman to be seen getting cozy with black men.

    1. No. Basically the guy doesn’t want his hooker out in public with black men. He is okay with her banging them, just don’t be public about it. It is amusingly anarchic and a bit pathetic but not really disturbing or anything I could ever give a fuck about.

      If they caught a black player telling his black girlfriend he didn’t want her out banging Mexicans, no one would care.

      1. Not sure why you insist on calling any woman who is not legally married to their lover a “hooker” or a “whore”. It’s really offputting and retarded.

        1. What is retarded is pretending a beautiful young woman who is banging a rich old married guy is doing it out of love and not for the money.

          There is nothing wrong with being a hooker. It should be legal to be such and who am I or anyone else to judge how someone pays the bills. Spare me the moralizing about what she is and is not.

          If you are so retarded that your parents were never able to explain the facts of life to you, that is your problem not ours.

          1. “Spare me the moralizing about what she is and is not.”

            Says the fellow who called her a hooker. No moralizing implied in that term.

            1. Semantic troll is semantic.

              1. Yes John, hooker was a purely descriptive word choice by you. sheesh

            2. So at best, you both moralized. What’s your point?

              1. John, your comments make you sound like an asshole who’s been jilted by pretty girls one too many times.

                1. Not really. She’s clearly in it for the money. Why are you white knighting her? She ain’t gonna sleep with you, dude. She doesn’t even know who you are. White knight elsewhere.

        2. John’s sexism compliments his racism.

          1. You are the only racist on here shreek. Hell, you should be defending Sterling. You are the one who thinks it is a scandal Clearance Thomas married a white woman. I would think you and Don would be on the same page here.

          2. Re: Peter Caca,

            I have read John’s posts for many years and he has never uttered a word that would tell me he’s a racist. As for calling a particular woman he doesn’t know a “whore” or “hooker”, that may be crass, but this is an open forum, not a church.

            1. Well, to be fair I called Michele Bachmann a whore here for illicitly taking all that Medicaid and farm subsidy money from the feds. It was slightly inaccurate – we got fucked and she didn’t.

          3. Shriek, shut your mongoloid whore mouth.

    2. I’m still trying to wrap my head around someone who has a (ridiculously hot) black and latino GF being a racist.

      Seems like putting your dick in someone you’re into who is of a different ethnicity should permanently dispel any racism toward at least that ethnicity.

      1. “Seems like putting your dick in someone you’re into who is of a different ethnicity should permanently dispel any racism toward at least that ethnicity.”

        Pretty sure of female slaves got raped by white racists.

        1. Storm Thurmond was pretty damn racist and fucked some black women.

      2. I don’t know about that, the most racist friend I know is dating a black chick right now.

        Maybe Sterling just doesn’t like black guys.

      3. She’s a weird looking victim of bad plastic surgery, but I suppose that’s off point.

    3. But singling out black men is kind of racist, no?

      1. It tells me more about his sexual issues than his race issues, if you ask me.

        1. It tells me more about his sexual issues than his race issues, if you ask me

          Some people of his generation (and later generations, as well) have some deeply contradictory beliefs on race and racism.

          This guy probably voted for Obama.

          Most of the people I live around in my upscale neighborhood are white and liberal but they don’t want to live around black people. They isolate themselves from the ugly reality of black life in the near cities (Newark, Jersey City, Camden) but will consistently vote Democrat because compassion.

          1. Hi Lady. This is the second time I’ve seen you lump in Jersey City with Newark, Camden, Patterson and the like.
            Again, I will say that you must not know much about Jersey City. The entire waterfront and downtown area are full of of young, well off whites and Asians living in $400k – $1MM condos or 2 to 4k/month apts.

            You sound like a white suburban snob.

            1. I volunteer weekly at a charter school located on Kennedy Blvd in Jersey City. There are gentrified areas near the waterfront but much of it is a shit hole. You sound like a pretentious ass.

              1. So you’re basing your JC knowledge on the one neighborhood you go to.
                I once live off Kennedy in Greeneville, and that area is a shithole.

                But you don’t know what you’re talking about if you’re comparing JC to Camden and Newark. I have to conclude that you haven’t been downtown in the last 10 years.

                1. My, my, you are sensitive. So, I concede, on a relative basis JC isn’t quite as bad a shit hole as Newark or Camden. Are there any other more relevant points you’d like to split hairs on?

                  1. Born and raised in NJ. JC is better than it used to be, and no, it’s not as bad as Camden or Newark. However, the shit areas are still quite shit.

        2. His sexual issues which hinge on race I guess.

          If you are worried about your mistress appearing with other men that’s one thing, but black men specifically seems racist.

          Not that that warrants ‘firing’ (firing an owner seems to be a goofy concept to me)

          1. Yeah, that’s confusing the shit out of me. Either you own the team or you don’t, right? Yeah, maybe you can push the team out of the league or whatever, but what kind of bizarre terms of incorporation allow for hiring “owners”?

      2. But singling out black men is kind of racist, no?

        Kind of. But he may be singling them out because of how others see them (as studs), and not because he in particular sees them that way (though I will grant that he probably does).

        In any event, I wouldn’t call the racist aspect “deeply disturbing.” I might say it’s mildly disturbing, amid a mess of data that is disturbing in many other ways.

    4. Yeah, that seems to be the only explanation I can see since why else would an owner of a team in a “black league” mind if black guys show up to spectate. Trying to follow his ‘culture’ logic in the tape just confused me.

      1. He all but spelled it out for those who listen.

        He just doesn’t want his friends to call him and tell him his mistress is seeking out the company of virile young ( younger than him) black men, to find the satisfaction that his older ass can’t provide her.

        That is all. He told her he didn’t care if she was fucking them just don’t be so public that his friends are calling him to point it out to him.

        1. Sorta like a the high society wife who doesn’t mind that her husband has a mistress on the side, just so long as he is discreet about it and her friends don’t throw it in her face.

          1. That woman’s no different than an exotic sportscar or a platinum Rolex. For whatever reason these sad old men have buckets of cash and still lose sleep over the idea that someone, somewhere doesn’t think they’re the baddest men on Earth, so they buy cars they can’t drive and associate with young women they have to bribe as if that’s going to fool people into thinking that a pot-bellied septuagenarian is a hot-blooded, testosterone-oozing stallion who all women find irresistible and all men envy.

    5. He says he doesn’t care if she fucks black guys but doesn’t want her to “publicize” it. He doesn’t want his friends or associates to know she fucks black guys but it’s okay if she actually does it.

      He’s concerned about perception not reality. He sounds like a mewling, passive-aggressive baby.

      1. “…Don’t put him [Magic] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don’t bring him to my games.”

        This line makes it seem to me that Stirling is more worried about racist associates than him being a flaming racist himself. The majority of people in his age group (of all colors) tend towards racial collectivist thinking, but judging from his business and personal conduct it seems that he’s on the lower end of the typical 80-something racist scale.

        I don’t buy the threatened by black men thing. I think his comments make it clear that he doesn’t give a fuck, but just doesn’t want his social, and possibly business, relations hassled or injured.

        I think he’s fuckstick for that and pretty loathsome to modern thinking, but might be by his own thinking that he is a tolerant person. I try to do a mental adjustment when people this old say shit that just jars my sensibilities. Not to accept it, but at least to put it into some kind of perspective.

        1. This line makes it seem to me that Stirling is more worried about racist associates than him being a flaming racist himself.

          I hadn’t thought of that. And the more I do, the more it makes sense. I think you may have nailed it DwT.

        2. This is nothing new for Sterling. There’s no need to come up with bullshit alternative explanations to cover the fact that Sterling is racist. Sometimes, a spade is a spade, and should be called as such.

          1. This is nothing new for Sterling. There’s no need to come up with bullshit alternative explanations to cover the fact that Sterling is racist. Sometimes, a spade is a spade, and should be called as such.

            Perhaps, but the assertion that he’s a racist doesn’t square with the fact that he dated a black women. DwT’s theory provides an explanation for that apparent contradiction.

            1. “Perhaps, but the assertion that he’s a racist doesn’t square with the fact that he dated a black women.”

              If you assume that any white guy willing to fuck a black woman isn’t racist, then sure, but that isn’t the case. Was Strom Thurmond not racist? How about all the slaveowners who raped their slaves? One can carve out special exemptions for certain people (in this case, because she’s an attractive young woman who lets him fuck her) while still holding negative stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes about their race as a whole. The fact that Sterling is a pathetic conflicted weasel doesn’t mean he’s also not a racist.

      2. He’s concerned about perception not reality. He sounds like a mewling, passive-aggressive baby.

        This. I think he’s an insecure, pathetic loser who threw a hissy fit.

        I think punishing someone this pathetic is almost beside the point. His life is already hell.

        1. I cynically believe that those who are punishing him are doing so for their own benefit, though I’m not sure how that works*. Your average black person will probably read his remarks, shake their head, and go on with their life. The Al Sharptons of the world are the ones making hay of it.

          *Probably something like this:
          1. Throw public conniption fit about some fairly benign (compared to that rancher guy for example) racist comments.
          2. ???
          3. Profit!

          1. I think TPTB benefit by making the reasons for a racist auto-da-fe increasingly subtle. It gives them more levers with which to control the rabble.

    6. Basically a rich old guy has a pretty young thing for sex and status, and believes that her status, and thereby his, will be lessened in the eyes of many (especially his age and wealth contemporaries) if she’s seen cozying up to famous men in public, and in particular to famous black men.

      I wonder how much of his discomfort was actually over Magic’s HIV status, and he just latched on to Blackness as the cause of his discomfort. Having your gold digging gal chumming about with a large famous athlete with an incurable STD is not something that enhances her status as a “delicate” lady.

      The guy’s a bigot, but really just more concerned over the status and image he’s buying with his pretty young thing. I doubt that he’s much more bigoted than other men his age.

      Meanwhile, a black man can belong to a black supremacist church for a decade and still become president.

      Curious how all this self righteous condemnation of bigotry is not consistently applied.

      I wonder if Sir Charles and Magic are equally outraged when their friends make bigoted comments about women, Arabs, atheists, Asians, etc. Or are they and all their friends entirely bigotry free? How wonderful that must be for them.

      1. Yeah, but it’s strange to me that he has a problem with Magic Johnson. If anything, that’s the person you want her to be seen with. He’s the polar opposite of, say, Allen Iverson. The biggest controversy, if you can call it that, around Johnson is that he has HIV, and, really, he’s handled that with such dignity and gravitas that he’s become something of a spokesman for HIV survivors and a philanthropist.

  7. I’m gonna need more pics of the girlfriend before I can make a ruling on this one…

  8. CEOs I get, but owners; how do you fire an owner?
    “I’m sorry Mr Sterling, but we’re going to need you to sell your team, mkay?”

    1. 1) Board of Directors can fire CEOs, if it is a publicly owned corporation. Being the CEO and being the owner are two different jobs.

      2) Clients can “fire” owners by making it so prohibitively expensive that making someone else CEO makes business sense.

      1. Being the CEO and being the owner are two different jobs

        I understand the distinction, hence my question about owners specifically.
        So, in other words, barring some sort of action from the NBA (sanctions, etc) or from his customers (boycotts, sponsorship losses), he could stay as long as he wants even it meant torpedoing the franchise. ?

        1. I think that’s correct. If he really is THE OWNER, then the only problem for him would be getting excommunicated by the NBA.

          1. I am also pretty sure the NBA can ban him from attending games. Remember, he is only the owner of a franchise.

  9. Apparently ex-GF has a current legal action against Sterling. That gives him reprieve at least until the Clips lose in the playoffs.

  10. We used to not have to worry too much about private views because people had privacy. People said things with a very good assurance they would never go public. Now with the availability of recording devices and the internet, we really have no privacy. Anything you say to anyone can conceivably be recorded and placed on the internet.

    Progs wake up every day with a hard on thinking about how they can now punish the unbelievers even if they cover it up and only say their herasies in private. The rest of us should worry about this.

    Is there any evidence Sterling has ever acted in a racist way in his ownership of the Clippers? None that I know of. What we have here is someone in their private life who has committed the the thought crime of being white and thinking the races shouldn’t mix. Which side should one be on? Should you be on the side that says “I don’t care what Sterling says in private or thinks come back and talk to me when he does something that is wrong not just says something” or on the side of “someone who thinks these things should not be running a business like the NBA”?

    1. I am in the former camp. I don’t see how you can be in the latter camp and really have much interest in a free and open society. And the point here of course has nothing to do with government. The NBA is a private organization and they can do what they like. That they can do that doesn’t make it right or make it right to join in the mob encouraging them to do it. People always talk shit about courage and standing up for the unpopular view against the mob. Well, they mostly are just talking shit and living a fantasy where the unpopular view is really the right one and they know it. Hell, that is easy. Anyone above the moral level of Shreek and Tony will do that. What is hard and what shows you have a real commitment to freedom is standing up to the mob for the wrong view and the view you find appalling because you believe that people’s private views ought to be just that private and that people should be judged by their actions not what thoughts are going through their head or what they said last night in an argument with their mistress.

    2. “We used to not have to worry too much about private views because people had privacy. ”

      Did you feel the same way about, say, Linda Tripp’s actions?

      1. Maybe we should discus my views on Linda Tripp on a thread where it is relevant. You seem to have stopped trying lately.

        1. Can you point me to any denunciations of Tripp in the archives, since, you know, you are a consistent defender of personal privacy it must have really outraged you.

          1. How come every time I see a post by John, I see a post from you right under it? Whats you’re deal with John anyways?

            1. I don’t care for conservatives who show up on a libertarian site to berate the writers for their bias. John is the worst but I consistently call it out in others (ask Restoras, SIV, rob or It)

              1. You are a liberal troll are tiresome idiot. Your game is to make idiotic points and drag the board down to your level through endless and stupid semantic debates. You only obsesses over me because I make points you don’t like and prevent you from making it look looked libertarian really means prog. Everyone who reads this board knows you are just a slightly less looney version of Shreek.

            2. They’re sock puppets for each other. 😉

              I usually just scroll past the John/BCE walls of text.

            3. “How come every time I see a post by John, I see a post from you right under it? ”

              It’s classic obsessive behavior.

          2. You’ve repeatedly trapped John like a dormouse.

            He is a cookie-cut conservative – blustery, wrong, and always certain of himself.

            1. When you’ve got Shreeeek in your corner, you may be assured you are taking the principled libertarian stand.

    3. Well, Sterling has been notoriously stingy for most of his history as an owner. Maybe racism played a role in that. Either way, those private thoughts are now public, and they’re a pretty big deal for a league where 75% of its players are black.

      1. Yes, I think you are right about that. It’s going to be difficult for him going forward as a successful “owner” of an NBA team. He’s going to have to mount a pretty effective (and probably expensive) PR campaign to get out of this. Or just sell the team and be done with it.

  11. As I was flipping through the channels earlier, that moralizing douchebag Costas was delivering a fluttery tirade about how this guy should be forced to perform public acts of humiliation and remorse. I’m sure some sort of ring kissing would be involved.

    1. I will remember that the next time some white douche bag sports reporter has kittens at the thought of a scary black athlete owning a gun.

      Sportswriters are some of the most condescending racists on earth. They look at black athletes the same way horse racing fans look at thoroughbreds; as some sort of beautiful and dangerous beast.

      1. “I will remember that the next time some white douche bag sports reporter has kittens at the thought of a scary black athlete owning a gun.”

        Anyone who worries about the mere owning of a gun is a problem to me, but they are only being racist if they worry about one race owning guns but not another

        1. The implication of Costas’ statement was that young black millionaires cannot responsibly own firearms.

          1. I did not follow that, but if that is what he said (though the ‘implication’ part gives me some pause ) it was racist .

            Of course Costas had made unequivocal gun control statements that warrant plenty of criticism alone

            1. “I did not follow that, but if that is what he said..”

              IOW – “I don’t know what I’m talking about again, but there’s a Kultur War thing going on so I better defend the liberal”

    2. The one big letdown in the progressive massacre that was the latest federal gun-control initiative is that the people of the gun didn’t organize a concerted effort to get Costas fired.

      If Limbaugh gets fired sans boycott for talking about the marketing desirability of black quarterbacks, you’d think that the NRA could marshal enough public outrage to show Costas the door.

      1. Rush was set up, and he fell for it.

      2. Hi Barny Frank.

        Interesting name choice.

        1. It’s backwards, see? That’s like, symbolic.

          For 2015, I’m considering Amabo Yrrab. Or maybe Aracob Elohssa. So many appropriate handles.

          1. Amabo Yrrab would be “double backwards”.

            lol

            Keep up the good work young man.

    3. Speaking of douchebags, I’m sure Lupica is on his highest of horses in today’s Daily News.

  12. With Sterling, it’s hard to see any way forward but giving him the boot.

    He can always appear on Youtube and beg for forgiveness like Paula Dean did. See if that helps this time.

    1. The NBA could always just tell the race baiters to go fuck themselves and just wait until they get bored and find a new target. What is the media going to do, stop covering the NBA? Is black America going to stop watching the NBA and buying LaBron James jerseys over this? Are the black players going to move on to other seven and eight figure jobs because they just can’t take the tainted money anymore?

      Just once I would like to see someone have some balls and tell these idiots to go fuck themselves.

      1. I agree. So far this man has been paying his players excellent money for their talents. The market takes care of racists by imposing economic reality on their limited views. If he were a consistent racist (and not just someone who thinks has a small dick) he would try to compete with a team made of 5’9″ Jewish men and not the best players in the market.

        If he has been, so far, an effective business manager for the team, then what does it matter what he tells his girlfriend with whom she can be seen on public? What difference, at this point, does it make?

        1. Exactly. He may hate black people. But the market ensures he can’t act on that hatred and stay in business. This is an example of how the free market solves racism. A racist has been forced by the market to have a black coach nearly all black team and pay them all millions. If anything people should find Sterling being a racist in private amusing poetic justice.

          1. He’s making a lot of money of blacks that he hates, not exactly unprecedented that, and not much poetic justice

            1. Wow you are stupid. I just have to laugh. Any response will just lead and endless tiresome fight over semantics involving you refusing to understand the point.

              1. It’s not semantics, your point is just silly. It is poetic justice to hate blacks but have to employ them to make millions for yourself? Silly.

                1. It is poetic justice that, to succeed at your given trade, you must enrich the very people that you hate.

                  Not exactly ball-crushingly difficult to figure out.

                  1. While they enrich you more? Would that we all suffer such justice!

                    1. I knew it was just a matter of time before “economic justice” came up. In the business, that’s what we call a “tell”.

                2. The Clippers are a toy for Sterling. He’s not in the NBA for the money. He made/makes his money as a shyster and in real estate.

                  Once again you’re commenting on a subject that you have knowledge of so you can express your lefty bonafides.

                  1. no knowledge

            2. Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

              He’s making a lot of money of blacks that he hates, not exactly unprecedented that, and not much poetic justice

              The poetry of the market shoving its reality on his bigotry. He can’t make money out of fellow 5’9″ Jewish men; he has to buy the talent of people he’s not fond of.

              1. But by that logic the people that owned the land rented by black sharecroppers were ‘victims’ of ‘poetic justice’ and that certainly doesn’t sound right

                1. Your assuming that all land owners were/are racist.

                2. Did you seriously just compare black players in a league with a union-contracted minimum salary of half a million dollars a year to sharecroppers? God you’re a fucking joke.

          2. But the market ensures he can’t act on that hatred and stay in business. This is an example of how the free market solves racism.

            Okay, sorry John, but I can’t just let this statement go without commenting.

            Weren’t you the guy on the Eich thread the other day arguing that consumers have NO BUSINESS making their decisions of whether or not to purchase a product based upon the views of the CEO?

            Consistency, how does it work?

            These are the types of errors people without principles (Team Red/Blue) fall into.

            1. He has to hire based on ability not tribe. The other case is hiring on tribe.

      2. Didn’t Duck Dynasty do exactly that, and aren’t they even more popular as a result? People need to grow some balls and stand up against these bullies.

        I bet there are people that are on Sterling’s side, who might not agree with what he said, but don’t think it’s a big deal, and would defend him. However if Sterling immediately falls to his knees and begs forgiveness, and tells the world what a horrible person he is, then it’s going to be very difficult for anyone else to stand up, and defend him.

        Basically why should I or anyone else defend someone who isn’t willing to defend themselves?

        1. Yes they did.

      3. This is not “race bait[ing]” John, the remarks themselves were racist. This guy runs a team where most players are black but specifically is opposed to his mistress being with black guys and bringing black guys to his game. If blacks say “wait, what?” To that then that is not “race baiting”

        1. Sure blacks can be offended; Sterling is a giant asshole. But when white liberals get all “outraged”, it’s paternalism at it’s worst.

  13. They won’t touch him, he’s jewish. You watch and see.

    Also too, If I were him and they tried to take my NBA status. I’d close the team down, and sell off the assets and keep the rights to the name of the team and if someone else tried to start another team with that name; I’d sue the pants off of them.

    The point is: The man has a right to his beliefs. Are they offensive? It depends on the person. The PC B.S. has gone too far amuck. If I were him, I’d hunker down, lawyer up and threaten everyone involved. “ya’ll mess with me and you gonna be paying me, big time.”

    Just my opinion.

    -Patrick

    1. What does being Jewish have to do with anything?

      1. Re: Old Man With Candy,

        If he were a Southern Baptist, he would have been already run out of town with torches and pitchforks.

        1. So he’s being protected by Zionist forces are something? He’s catching nothing but criticism, same as if he were not Jewish

          1. Ah, just wait and see the spectacle.

          2. It’s the battle of the “Protected Classes with Well-Funded Outrage Lobbies.” Only one can walk away alive (but hopefully dies of its injuries soon after).

            1. I will be surprised if there is any battle-he will be roundly condemned, he will make apologies, and some reprimand from the league will follow

              1. Are supporting this mindless witch-hunt against this poor old Jewish man?

                Your lack of compassion for down-trodden minorities smacks of racism.

        2. Cite needed. As far as I can see, Jews have no particular shield against the Outrage Lobby, unless you can point to some instances demonstrating otherwise. In fact, antisemitism is quite fashionable on the Left (see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Cynthia McKinney…).

          1. It seems like the outrage hierarchy goes something like:

            1. LGBT
            2. Black
            3. Hispanic
            4. Jewish
            5. Muslim
            6. Native American/American Indian/First Peoples (or whatever you weirdos up north call them)
            7. Asians

            The LGBT community has absolutely skyrocketed up the charts over the past 5 years or so. Muslims have hovered in the middle for awhile now. Ironically, every time a terrorist attack or some outrage is perpetrated by a Muslim or an Arab (they get lumped together for outrage purposes) it produces both antipathy and sympathy in almost equal measure. NA/AI suffers from a lack of visibility, and, as usual, nobody gives a flying rat’s ass about Asians in this country, and they haven’t learned to complain. Sorry, guys.

    2. They won’t touch him, he’s jewish. You watch and see.

      Let’s add some anti-semitism to this over the top racism! Just what we need.

  14. Some thoughts:

    1. This situation seems very weird. A man who dates a woman of African descent being “racist” toward people of African descent? One could argue that these were more the rantings of a jealous man than a declaration of racial supremacy. And a man frequently sued for race discrimination was in line to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP? There seems to be more going with Sterling than what has been disclosed to this point. (P.S. – setting a lawsuit with the government in no way implies an admission of guilt or that the claim had merit).

    2. After 31 years of practicing law I have developed a very, very healthy skepticism of selective disclosures of recordings, transcripts, letters, emails, etc., by interested parties with axes to grind. I have seen too many instances in which the entirety of the document or recording, sometimes the very next entry, refutes what the leaking party wanted to convey.

    3. This was an intimate discussion between two lovers that was leaked after the relationship soured. Other than the subject matter, how is this different from revenge porn, which many of the same people attacking Sterling want to criminalize?

    4. We’d all better pray that no one has been following us around with audio recordings.

    1. The revenge porn is a really good analogy. And it is also a good point that the media likely has this wrong like they do every other story.

    2. “4. We’d all better pray that no one has been following us around with audio recordings.”

      Nope.
      I can’t remember a rant like that since I was in the service with some folks stuck in the 1930s.

      1. You have nothing to worry about. They will only go after racists. I mean all this means is that everyone is okay just so long as they never say anything even in private that society and the media find objectionable. What could possibly go wrong?

        1. About a year or so ago here was a thread on Facebook about the murder of some white Australian in Oklahoma. He got killed by two black teens who apparently picked him out at random (and because he was white). People were decrying this as “senseless” and “incomprehensible.” I pointed out that it might not really be “senseless” and “incomprehensible” because both teens were aspiring rappers and gangsta wannabes, and that it wasn’t unknown for aspiring rappers and gangsta wannabes to commit a pointless crime for street cred or as a gang initiation.

          For this I was defriended by one guy for saying something “racist.”

      2. I’m sure you’ve never had a racist thought in your entire life. Never said a racist comment, or an off-color joke, or any remark that could be interpreted as racist.

      3. “4. We’d all better pray that no one has been following us around with audio recordings.”

        Nope.
        I can’t remember a rant like that since I was in the service with some folks stuck in the 1930s.

        You have no idea how even the most innocuous comments can be made to sound with a little editing and spin.

        1. “You have no idea how even the most innocuous comments can be made to sound with a little editing and spin.”

          Folks, let’s not wonder off here.
          I am not proposing that people should be recorded, and I fully understand that editing can make the best comment sound horrible.
          But to be clear, if I were sitting at a bar and the guy next to me spouted this sort of crap, I’d leave.

          1. But to be clear, if I were sitting at a bar and the guy next to me spouted this sort of crap, I’d leave.

            Why? I find that reaction very strange, to be honest. If you’re sitting in a bar full of Klan, sure, but one dude says some shit at a bar that you find objectionable and you run off? Why not call him out on it? To me that’s a better option than letting some dude’s private conversation determine your plans for the evening.

    3. “One could argue that these were more the rantings of a jealous man than a declaration of racial supremacy.”

      Yeah, also it seems like the dude’s faculties might not be quite what they were even a few years ago. And so it’s not necessarily that weird to see seemingly contradictory thoughts and behavior.

      The private phone call thing is disturbing though. Imagine for a moment the subject matter of the call was sexually deviant instead of racist. Would it be clearer to everyone what a gross violation of privacy this is?

      1. Would it be clearer to everyone what a gross violation of privacy this is?

        Look, if we have to tap every phone, open every piece of mail, and hack every email, it will all be worth it if we expose only one raaaacist cockroach to the light of divine justice.

        1. So the NSA is doing Gods work ?

  15. Slightly OT – SoCon theocracy alert:

    A high school curriculum supported by Hobby Lobby chain president Steve Green, billed as a way to teach archaeology, history and the arts through Bible stories, also tells students God is always there in times of trouble and that sinners must “suffer the consequences” of disobeying.

    The Mustang School Board in suburban Oklahoma City voted this month to place the Museum of the Bible’s curriculum in its schools as an elective for a one-year trial after being assured that the intent is not to proselytize but to use the Bible to explain key principles in the arts and sciences.

    While the course does explain the inspiration behind famous works of art and holds a prism to historical events, it also endorses behavior for religious reasons and implies that bad things happen as a direct result of disregarding God’s rules.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS…..r-23475591

    1. Re: Peter Caca,

      The Mustang School Board in suburban Oklahoma City voted this month to place the Museum of the Bible’s curriculum in its schools as an elective for a one-year trial[…]

      The interesting part which seems to have escaped you is that this is an elective course. Us parents cannot elect where to send our kids unless we MOVE to a different neighborhood or are very wealthy (the second part because it is horribly expensive to open a private school in the U.S. after permits and zoning compliances plus the unfair competition from government schools, thus the high tuition costs.)

      Instead, ABC and you focus on the irrelevant – who the fuck cares that the course has a religious slant? Have you seen the current courses in college on race and gender? It doesn’t get more religious than that.

      1. Can I, following the LP platform be upset about both the compulsory government schools and government aiding religion?

        1. You should be upset about government co-opting religion.

          1. The LP platform condemns both

            1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

              Then what is your problem?

              1. I guess I wonder what is yours? If government aid to religion is bad, what is wrong with PB pointing that out? Why must the qualifier “yes, but government schools or coopting religion is worse’ be tacked on?

                1. In what way are they “aiding” anything by offering a class that addresses it as an elective? Are they aiding slavery by teaching about it even though slavery is outlawed? History is history, and ignoring the religious components of it and the influence it had on mankind is pretty foolish.

                  1. To the extent it is pro-religion and funded or endorsed by the government it is aiding religion

                    1. “While the course does explain the inspiration behind famous works of art and holds a prism to historical events, it also endorses behavior for religious reasons and implies that bad things happen as a direct result of disregarding God’s rules.”

                      You don’t like me and want to argue against me , but you do not want to just be flailing around take a minute to read what I’m talking about before closing your eyes and swinging

                    2. FTA (emphasis mine): This is not about a denomination, or a religion, it’s about a book,” Green told Mustang school board members last November. “We will not try to go down denominational, religious-type roads.”

                      Among the topics covered by the curriculum are the role of religion in early America, discussing the New World as a haven for those seeking to escape religious persecution. It also talks about the role of religion in art, citing the role of patrons such as the Catholic church and wealthy families during the Renaissance.

                      The book also uses popular culture, mentioning songs written by U2 that it says are based in the Psalms, to illustrate the Bible’s modern relevance. It does not name specific compositions.

                      Funny that you’ll accept the ABC writer’s opinion that the book advocates but you won’t take anybody else’s.

                      Also FTA: Andrew Seidel, a lawyer with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote to the Mustang district this week complaining that “negative aspects” of God, such as jealousy or punishing children for the actions of their parents, are not mentioned in the course.

                      Sounds like he’s saying that it’s ok to teach the entire bible but not selecting ways that it has influenced history.

                    3. To the extent it is pro-religion and funded or endorsed by the government it is aiding religion

                      Which religion? Please be specific and cite examples.

                      Please also explain how this is either having Congress establish a religion or how it prohibits the free exercise of a religion (or non-religion). Please be specific and cite examples.

                    4. And it’s sloopinca over Bo and the Buttplug in this sub-thread.

  16. opposing marriage equality isn’t the same as being racist. I don’t think I agree with that

    That is because you are either stupid or doing a damn good job of pretending you are. One is a worldview (racism), the other is a policy preference (pro-SSM). Conflating the two is certainly your choice, but it is a counterproductive one given the libertarian need to separate the two for the purposes of ideology and the way that such has been used against libertarians even now. You say anti-SSM = racist, progs say the same about capitalism. They said the same about being against forced busting, against anti-discrimination law, anti-affirmative action, etc. This is not a game libertarians want to play, and I don’t see how calling anyone who is against ‘marriage equality (hardly unanimous even among libertarians of good faith) racists is a good idea or a good way to de-escalate the Culture War.

    1. “One is a worldview (racism), the other is a policy preference (pro-SSM)”

      That does not seem right if the policy position is taken because of bigoted motivation. If, like the Duck Dynasty guy you oppose ga marriage because you think gay people’s orientation to be sick then that would be as bad as opposing reforming crack laws because you think blacks are inferior and deserve to be locked up.

      1. How is sexual preference the same thing as a race?

        And how is saying that gay sex is wrong any different then saying that BDSM, or one of the several thousands different types of fetishes out there is wrong?

        1. I think it is like race to the extent that it is not a choice, immutable and harms no one.

          1. Same sex marriage isn’t a choice?

            Lol, ok.

            1. If only he had asked about SSM and not sexual preference…,

              1. Except above you said that being anti-SSM = racism. I guess I should have noted your goalpost moving by conflating the two different things (being gay and SSM).

                1. I moved the goalposts by answering Bardmetal’s different question?

                  You’re flailing again

              2. Are you sure that sexual preference isn’t a choice? Are fetishes also not a choice?

                If the Duck Dynasty guy said something to the effect of that swinging, or BDSM, was immoral, would that sort of statement be treated the same?

                Why are gays treated like they are a different race of people, who have no choice in who they are, but say for example foot fetishists are not. Whats the difference?

                1. I’m not sure it is not, which is why I said ‘to the extent that’

                  1. Fuck, if there was an “ignore” button, you would be on it. Worse then PB, a closet proggie trying to act Libertarian.

      2. That does not seem right if the policy position is taken because of bigoted motivation.

        That’s my point, Professor. One can, at best, declare anti-SSM as a *consequence* of solely bigotry — and only if one can prove/assumes that 100% of people who support SSM do so based on bigoted impulses. The existence of non-bigoted arguments for SSM (however flawed or statist) and their articulation by people on that side of the aisle prevents me from making that determination as blithely as Nick does. If every anti-SSM rationale given were like that of the Duck Dynasty guy, then I would agree with you that the position is based on bigotry — as it is, I will make that determination on a case-by-case basis, rather than simply assuming motivation so as to make my own position on the issue seem more enlightened (rather than arguing my position based on its merits).

        As I said, the shift from rational argumentation based on premises to declaring errant motivation and then isolating the target from society, is not one that suits libertarianism’s strengths or even its reason for being.

        1. I do not think opposing gay marriage necessarily implies bigotry towards gays, but 1. I can see why reasonable people might (because essentially it boils down to the ‘gay’ of the couple meaning they are either inferior , not appropriate/ideal or undermining of ‘the good’ in some way) and 2. I can see why saying a position is ‘anti gay’ might imply something less than bigotry (maybe one just means opposed to things gays want)

          1. Nick literally said that he disagrees with arguments on the order of racist=/= gay. Try again prof.

            1. “he disagrees with arguments on the order of racist=/= gay.”

              Huh? Can you rephrase that garbled mess?

              1. Read the damn quote for yourself, you innumerate, pedantic asshole. Everyone else on this thread does just fine following my logic, despite English being my second language; you’re being a prissy shit *because* you understand my meaning, not in spite of it.

    2. Please make a different argument for each issue based on first principles to justify your position.

      1. First principles. What are those beyond “things Fransisco likes”?

        1. First principles. What are those beyond “things Fransisco likes”?

          John, that statement is borderline libel.

          My principles, for maybe the hundredth time, are as follows:

          First and foremost, the NAP. You may not initiate aggression.

          In compliance with the following two Tenets:

          1. People may do as they wish, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

          2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

          I defy you to find where I’ve argued contrary to those principles.

          1. Yes you like them. That is the whole point. The things you call first principles are just shut you like and nothing more.

            1. 1. Can you show me a philosophy that isn’t based upon an assertion (universal truth)?

              2. Do you disagree with either of those tenets?

              3. Can you tell me what your first principles are?

              1. They are all based on assertions sure. They are just not universal truths. They are assertions that appeal to the person making them. One is no better or worse than any other beyond their personal appeal to the person adopting them.

                I used to believe in such things as rationally derived universal truths. Then I read Hume and he showed me how silly that is.

                1. So, may I infer, that since you didn’t disagree with mine, that you don’t?

                  AND

                  Since you didn’t state what your principles are, that you have none?

                  1. I have lots of them. I just don’t pretend they are universal because I like them. I just don’t buy into the “magic universal principles that all reasonable men must agree on” mumbo jumbo.

                    1. So, IOW, you just do whatever feels good and then make up an argument to support your feelings.

                      My principles were chosen to maximize that which I value most…liberty.

                      As I said below, I choose what I like based upon my principles. By doing so, I never take a position that undermines that which I value most AND my positions are always consistent. Unlike yours.

                      Your “feelings” are what guide you, which makes you EXACTLY the same as a progressive. So you cannot complain the next time someone calls you Red Tony, as this is what they are talking about when they do.

                2. They are assertions that appeal to the person making them. One is no better or worse than any other beyond their personal appeal to the person adopting them.

                  So objectively there is no difference between the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism and classical liberalism, say, because both are based on equally-valid personal assertions. Remind me to bookmark this – it’s going to come in very, very handy in replying to you from here on out.

        2. First principles. What are those beyond “things Fransisco likes”?

          In fact, quite precisely the opposite.

          I determine what I like, based upon my principles. (NOT, “my principles are things I like”)

      2. Uh, what? I don’t need to recite the category of libertarian thought regarding race-based legislation to point out that it exists and that it is not racist; presumably you are against affirmative action on the grounds that money should not be forced out of the hands of a third party to achieve some favorable social outcome?

        Likewise, SSM is not a matter of negative rights or NAP; as a policy issue it is orthogonal to libertarian principles and arguments exist for and against it which have little to do with either libertarianism or bigotry. I don’t consider myself anti- or pro-SSM in any meaningful sense, but it is stupid to pretend that one side of the debate or other is simply made up of bigots or hedonists respectively for the purposes of silencing those individuals.

        1. “SSM is not a matter of negative rights ”

          Is the principle of equal protection of the law a negative or positive right ?

          1. Neither, but marriage is not a ‘protection’ so the question is irrelevant.

            1. The protection is against unequal treatment, so try again

              1. Where is the unequal treatment. Marriage is by its legal definition an inherently discriminatory institution. Gays are in the exact same boat as first cousins, siblings, parents, and single people in regards to who they can marry, in exactly the same way that the wealthy have the same position wrt welfare if they become impoverished as someone else. Marriage, like welfare, is targeted for a specific population and administered on that basis. If you have a problem with either one’s discrimination, it is with what they are intended to do as a function of public policy.

                Duh.

          2. Marriage is a right? Tell that to two first cousins or a pair of spinster sisters.

            1. The right is not to be treated unequally, marriage recognition is one possible application

              1. So you’re saying that the two cousins aren’t being treated unequally if they want to marry? Or that the spinsters aren’t wither if they want to establish their relationship for survivorship benefits or tax purposes?

                Please explain how their relationship isn’t worthy of the same respect as mine and Banjos, or any gay or straight couple out there where the participants aren’t as closely related.

        2. Actually, you do.

          Your claim is that sexual preference is different than race relations. (Or more specifically, you refute Nick’s claim that they are the same.)

          You need to tell me how they are different.

          Here is my take:

          1. People may do as they wish, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

          SO, you may have favorable or disfavorable opinions about (pick a race) so long as you take no action to violate the rights people of that race.

          Similarly, you may have favorable or disfavorable opinions about homosexuals so long as you take no action to violate the rights people of homosexuals.

          2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

          If the government is restricting or providing extra perks the rights of a given race they are violating both tenets 1 and 2. Similarly, if they are restricting or providing extra perks to homosexuals they are violating both tenets 1 and 2.

          I see NO difference between racism and SSM with respect to either of my principles. If the arguments hold for race, they also hold for homosexuals. IOW, if you can’t stop interracial marriages, you can’t stop homosexual marriages. So from a libertarian standpoint, they ARE, as Nick says, the same.

          1. I see NO difference between racism and SSM with respect to either of my principles.

            That’s nice. Most people don’t share your principles, and their bigotry (or lack thereof) must be evaluated based on *their* principles, not yours.

            1. So do so.

              Explain, based upon your principles how it’s okay to do something to homosexuals when it’s not okay to do the exact same thing to blacks, for instance.

              1. That’s the thing — I am not anti-SSM, so I have to do no such thing.

                OTOH, there are people like T Sowell who argue tat marriage is a legitimate institution to figure out what to do in e.g. child custody cases, for whom the purpose of marriage is to make procreation more regular. If you think that a kid’s biological parents are the optimal choice for child-rearing, you may find anti-SSM arguments more compelling. If you think gay couples are almost never going to have children, marriage laws may, in your mind, be inapplicable. You may oppose the anti-discrimination statutes often bundled with these laws. You may think that gov’t marriage is itself harmful and oppose giving it a new lease on life.

                In short, you may not believe the same things I do — and if my response to that is to call you a racist, I’m engaging in the opposite of a rational discussion. That type of dialogue does not serve libertarians well.

                1. opposing marriage equality isn’t the same as being racist. I don’t think I agree with that

                  But Nick, does have the same principles I have (or I’m willing to bet they are very close) as we are both libertarians. Racism and homophobia ARE the same thing IAW our principles.

                  I was able to show, through my principles, HOW they are the same. To which you claimed (at least to Nick):

                  That is because you are either stupid or doing a damn good job of pretending you are. One is a worldview (racism), the other is a policy preference (pro-SSM).

                  You further claim equating racism and SSM is the same as equating racism and capitalism.

                  You say anti-SSM = racist, progs say the same about capitalism.

                  False equivalence. I can show how racism and anti-SSM are the same. I doubt very much a prog can show me how racism and capitalism are the same. Just because progs use the tactic of calling any policy they disagree with racist, doesn’t mean certain policies aren’t the same as racism in principle.

                  I, respectfully, agree with Nick on this.

                  And if there is principled justification for treating homosexuals differently (with regard to the law) than other people, I’d like to hear it.

                  1. And if there is principled justification for treating homosexuals differently (with regard to the law) than other people, I’d like to hear it.

                    There isn’t, but neither is there a justification for treating polygamous, inter-related or single people differently before the law, all of which marriage does. It’s an inherently discriminatory institution that gifts certain people with legal inequality and will not cease to be so when all 50 states start issuing the license for that privilege to homosexual couples. That’s what makes SSM different from racism. Supporting or opposing the modest expansion of a legal construct specifically designed to treat certain people differently before the law than others has little or nothing to do with a belief in the superiority or inferiority of a person based upon his or her skin color. It’s nice that you managed to simplify both issues to a point where they could come to equivalence for the purposes of your principles, but pretending no other viewpoint is possible is a bit dismissive.

                    1. Supporting or opposing the modest expansion of a legal construct specifically designed to treat certain people differently before the law than others has little or nothing to do with a belief in the superiority or inferiority of a person based upon his or her skin color.

                      If you cannot discriminate based on the color of one’s skin, why can you discriminate based upon one’s sexual preference?

                      If putting blacks in the back of the bus is racist, why is it okay to put homosexuals in the back of the bus?

                      It’s the same premise. The arguments against each are identical.

                      No, discriminating against homosexuals isn’t literally “racist”, but it’s the same damn concept.

                    2. You absolutely can discriminate based on skin color. Try showing up to audition for the role of Booker T. Washington if you’re white or George Washington if you’re black; you’ll be shown the door right quick — precisely because the quality you are looking for is itself at odds with what the play or movie is going for (authenticity). Likewise, an anti-SSM argument simply needs to establish that there is a quality sought through marriage as a public institution which would be lost if marriage were expanded to those of a sexual preference which does not result in procreative sexual acts… I wonder if such a quality might exist somewhere; I’m sure if we thought about it long enough we might come up with something. As is helpfully pointed out by SSM advocates whenever the topics of polygamy and incestuous unions come up, there are reasons of public interest favoring marriage’s exclusion of those couples.

                      That’s not to say that you or I would agree with the anti-SSM guy or gal (we start out with very different premises vis a vis freedom and social engineering than most people), but rather that it is silly to attribute those views which we do not hold as being motivated by a nefarious and socially destructive motive (in this case racism): first because it’s not true, and second because libertarians will lose a fight held on those grounds.

                    3. It’s the same premise. The arguments against each are identical.

                      No, no really. You’ve just (over)simplified them until you could equate them. See my response below.

                      In point of fact, homosexuals aren’t being shown the back of the bus. It’s different because, well, you’re talking about two completely different things. No one is legally prohibited from providing services to homosexuals, nor are homosexuals required by law to segregate from the rest of society. They are being denied the same class if special privileges that many other people are denied on the basis of their biology, age, and sexual preferences (yes, Virginia, there are other sexual preferences besides “homo” and “hetero”). The point being, *as you said*, it’s wrong to provide a special benefit or to deny a right to any individual. Marriage does exactly that, and will continue to do so long after SSM is legal in all 50 states. It’s technically just as wrong to deny marriage benefits on the basis of race, sexual orientation, sexual identity, familial relation, age, or number of participants, but then you’re talking about limiting access to a legal institution that already violates your tenets in the first place (and I don’t see a lot of movement in libertarian circles for equalizing access on any of those other arbitrary criteria).

          2. If the government is restricting or providing extra perks the rights of a given race they are violating both tenets 1 and 2. Similarly, if they are restricting or providing extra perks to homosexuals they are violating both tenets 1 and 2.

            Hilariously enough, the government actually does both, and in particular as it regards marriage, the government offers extra perks to whomever it deems worthy of the title “marriage”. The SSM debate is strictly on whether gay couples get to join the club – in no circumstance will the government be treating people equally or offering the equal protection of the laws once monogamous pairs of homosexuals are able to get the same extra perks that monogamous pairs of heterosexuals are able to get.

            1. Hilariously enough, the government actually does both, and in particular as it regards marriage, the government offers extra perks to whomever it deems worthy of the title “marriage”.

              I don’t disagree. Government should have no business in marriage at all.

              I just don’t find the argument that allowing gays to marry is expanding the scope of government involvement in something they shouldn’t be doing in the first place and therefore we shouldn’t do it is particularly valid. I could have said the same about interracial marriages 40 years ago.

              I don’t see why heteros should get the gubmint cheese and the homos shouldn’t. However, I’d much prefer neither get it.

              1. I understand. My only point being, tenets 1 and 2 are violated by the very concept of marriage itself, and it isn’t just homosexuals on the receiving end of the shaft. And on that basis I think one can differentiate between SSM and racist policies that actually explicitly violated the free association rights of non-racists along with the minorities they were legally prohibited from serving. Unequally dividing up a pot of government loot is less-wrong IMO than forcing people to violate their conscience or strip away their freedom of association by telling them who they may or may not have a business relationship with.

              2. this is a bullshit position for a libertarian to hold.

                gays COULD start a gay healthcare insurance company and extend health benefits to ‘civil union’ partners.

                in a free market, why doesn’t that happen?

                the answer to that question is why mainstream corporate america does not want to legalize gay marriage. railing against conservative america does nothing to change corporate america.

                the fact is that gays are well known for promiscuity. which means their ‘marriage’ partner will change more often and be a larger healthcare risk than even a childbearing female, who pops out dependents who also get covered by insurance.

                corporate america COULD give each employee 1 designated ‘extra person’ coverage would extend to. they could name a spouse or a bum down the street. this would give equal protection employment compensation. yet it doesn’t happen.

                SSM does not solve discrimination, it just makes gays and married get extra coverage, and singles lose out on that compensation. its not about equality, its about social change via govt sponsored social acceptance.

  17. having a CEO who has made anti-gay comments

    Nick says as he links to his own column which says no such thing.

  18. There seems to be more going with Sterling than what has been disclosed to this point.

    Wait, what?

  19. Wake me up when the NBA takes the Clippers off the schedule.

  20. I don’t know anything about NBA ownerships, but how can an owner be fired?

    1. Nick should progsplain it to us.

      1. I’m pretty sure there’s a morals clause in every owner contract and that his ownership can be revoked or placed in a trust if he grossly violates it.

        I also think the owners can vote to have him removed in the same way they have the right whether to allow an owner to buy a team (see MLB owners voting to not allow certain ownership groups to buy the Cubs, IIRC).

        He may still be able to own the team but they can place that out of his control if they want to.

    2. You beat me to it. I had the same thought.

    3. “I don’t know anything about NBA ownerships, but how can an owner be fired?”

      Pretty sure the league can oust the team, which means no revenue and no arena, which means no players.
      So while the league may not be able to fire the guy, they can put an end to his involvement in pro hoops.

      1. What happens to the team though? It goes with him, right?

        1. Not sure, leagues have granted franchises with formerly existing team names before

          1. “Not sure, leagues have granted franchises with formerly existing team names before”

            Prolly covered on the 83rd page of his contract with the NBA, along with the rest of ‘you can ignore this boilerplate’.
            I’ll bet the NBA has enough ownership of the name to make it very expensive for him to argue.

    4. No, an owner cannot be fired. They can make it uncomfortable enough to force the owner out though.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott

      1. That’s baseball fuckboy, the B in NBA stands for Basketball, which is an entirely different sport.

      2. That was my understanding as well. I always thought it was similar to the NFL, where the owner does own the team as a franchise, meaning he/she (lulz) makes business decisions, owns the trademark to the team name, logo, media, etc., and reaps all the financial benefits associated with it. The NFL owns league games, television coverage, etc., and associated media (where it isn’t team-specific). So, yeah, you can’t “fire” the owner, but you can fine him, ban him from games, etc. Mark Cuban has some experience along these lines, I believe.

  21. In 2009, Mr. Sterling paid $2.725 million to settle a housing discrimination suit brought by the Justice Department, which accused him of systematically driving African-Americans, Latinos and families with children out of the apartment buildings he owned. In the settlement, Mr. Sterling did not admit wrongdoing.

    I heard that in that particular case the allegation was that Sterling was not making the required maintenance and repairs to the apartments, with the intention of driving out the tenants. Considering that these were apartments located in L.A., it tells me that these families were most likely squatters and Sterling did not want to go through a protracted process of eviction.

  22. Basically why should I or anyone else defend someone who isn’t willing to defend themselves?

    Why didn’t his hot Latifrican concubine tell him to take his courtside seats and shove them up his ass?

    1. Because money.

  23. In the Scots-Irish tradition, I don’t care that he has all this money or that he likes stupid girlfriends. What I don’t get is how so many people can hang with an NBA season and not get completely bored with it, especially during the excruciatingly long playoff process.

  24. “We are a black league”
    /Charles Barkley
    Why I haven’t been interested in basketball since the early 90s.

    1. Charles Barkley?

    2. Clearly the players for the Clippers are either so bothered by this that they can’t perform, or, they are on a work slowdown, because they are currently getting the shit beat out of them.

  25. Why does anyone still give a shit about the NBA or its owners?

    1. Not really. After football season is over, I stop giving a fuck.

  26. Raaaacist!!

  27. In my experience, there are people who are overtly racist, like a guy I was locked up with who would scream “charcoal-burnt niggers!!!” through the walls. (Incidentally that guy had a black adopted- or half- brother who he was great friends with).

    Then there are men who never show any overt racism, treat people of all races equally during their day-to-day activities, but who are disgusted at the thought of their girlfriend ever having slept with a black guy. I know a lot of guys like this. I think part of it is a class distinction, since a lot of black guys around here are poor, and white women who sleep with them are often basically trailer trash. Jealousy might play into it also, as black guys are seen as being more aggressive, bigger, having bigger dicks or whatever.

    Sterling might just have a bit of the latter prejudice in him. He’s not an outright racist, or he would own a hockey team or something. He is just jealous of younger, more athletic men and showing a class prejudice.

    Sorry for dragging this classy forum down to the ugly reality of post-civil rights racism, but everything I wrote above is true as I have seen and experienced it.

    1. Are you… are you suggesting that people are too… dare I say… too sensitive to apparent expressions of racism?

      Perish the thought!

    2. I think you nailed it, a lot of racism is more about culture, and class, and has nothing to do with someone’s actual race. I’m sure you’ve heard of white guys who get accused of “acting black”.

      People that I have met that say they have a problem with blacks are really saying they don’t like the black culture. They don’t like the hip hop, or clothes, or all the other things that are part of the black stereotype.

      It’s no different then someone saying they don’t like southerners because of all the various stereotypes associated with them.

      Only the most deranged people actually gives two shits about ethnicity, and DNA. In fact I wonder if racism is really the right word for it.

      1. The conflation of race and culture has villains squarely on both sides. Most of what is “racist” really has more to do with cultural conflicts. Personally I’m a quiet person that really does not get into loud, boisterous households. I was raised in a PA Dutch household, and if anyone is familiar with that archetype you’ll know what I mean. Does this make me racist against my Italian friends because when I go over for dinner the craziness sets my teeth on edge and I privately wonder how they can live like that? No. It means I have a prefered lifestyle, and seek associates and settings that are comfortable for me.

        The percentage of people who are actually racists that believe members of genetic lines outside of their own are less than fully human is vanishingly small in America. Spending a little time outside of the US of A is a real eye-opener for an individual with even elementary powers of observation.

      2. “It’s no different then someone saying they don’t like southerners because of all the various stereotypes associated with them.”

        I always like calling those posters out as bigots. And then watching them react in outrage. The outrage generally translates to, “It’s not bigotry if I say it, because I’m not a bigot.”

    3. Again, this isn’t anything new from Sterling. I’m not sure why people feel the need to do mental gymnastics to somehow avoid the obvious conclusion that the guy is racist.

      And it’s pretty ridiculous IMO to argue that racial prejudice isn’t racism as long as the root cause of it is cultural or class differences.

      1. Again, this isn’t anything new from Sterling.

        I must have missed the links to all the previous incidents where he was recorded saying prejudiced shit. It mostly seemed like accusations against a wealthy landlord that got thrown out of court. A stopped clock is right twice a day and all that.

        1. He settled (on more than one occasion), as we discussed below, it didn’t get thrown out. There have been MANY people, that have testified to hearing Sterling make racist remarks. That goes beyond housing tenants. I don’t know how closely you follow the NBA, but this isn’t really news. It’s been known for years. Even Clipper fans have known it, and it’s one reason why most of them are embarrassed by him. When a guy who’s had multiple accusations of housing discrimination, has had to make multimillion dollar settlements on the issue more than once, has been heard making racist remarks by many different people over the course of years, and is caught on tape making racist remarks, is it really a rush to judgment to think that the evidence points to him actually being racist?

  28. Since the NAACP would never support a racist I don’t see a problem with this guy. As long as the HNIC sees fit to give him an award, why do white niggers care?

  29. I didn’t quite follow the “not a marquee franchise that will get a pass” point, but it’s worth noting that the Clippers are considered by many to be the best team in the game right now. People who haven’t followed the NBA during the last three years might confuse them as still being an irrelevant, obscure franchise. They very well could be playing in the upcoming Finals, which would keep this Sterling issue firmly in the spotlight.

  30. This bickering is pointless. Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the Rebel fortress by the time this station is operational. We will then crush the Rebellion with one swift stroke.

    Got it?

  31. You think the professional commentariat would have learned some lessons for the flap with the Dept of Ag woman video and the NPR/Arab audio. You’d better not make ANY judgements off of “edited” media.

  32. I don’t care for conservatives who show up on a libertarian site to berate the writers for their bias. John is the worst but I consistently call it out in others (ask Restoras, SIV, rob or It)

    Grand Inquisitor of Libertarianism Bo, driving the heretics from his temple.

    That would make a good mural.

    1. Yes only those who are in lock step with Bo are true Libertarians. Bo der F?hrer of Libertarianism. Heil Bo!

      1. What a silly line, everyone I named is either upfront about not considering themselves libertarians or have made statements to that effect. It’s not like I’m calling people not libertarians over their position on IP or abortion. And it’s more interesting that more people here would give me flak for policing people’s views when I call out an admitted non libertarian who is attacking a Reason writer than would give flak to the ones attacking the Reason writers in the first place.

        1. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Didn’t realize you were such a Bush fan…

        2. Bo says “people here would give me flak for policing people’s views when I call out an admitted non libertarian ”

          Why do you feel the need to police other’s views ?

          1. Because Bo’s a prog troll.

            1. But he says he is a libertarian ?

              I don’t get it.

          2. I believe he’s saying that people claim he’s policing people’s views, not that he is in fact policing people’s views.

        3. everyone I named is either upfront about not considering themselves libertarians or have made statements to that effect.

          Everyone I named is either upfront about their communist affiliations or have made statements to that effect…

          /Bo’s House Un-Libertarian Activities Committee

          1. +100 Boseph McCarthies

    2. No one expects the Libertarian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is tiresomeness, deflection and tiresomeness..

  33. It means I have a prefered lifestyle, and seek associates and settings that are comfortable for me.

    THOUGHTCRIMINAL!

    How dare you (thee?) deny the truth and benefit of coercive diversity?

  34. donating to a (winning) political campaign 6 years prior is nothing like making racist remarks a couple weeks ago that blacks shouldn’t come to your business.

    Eich’s sin was merely having mainstream political views that are not on the approved list of the left wing nazis. Eich’s donation to Prop 8 in 2008 had absolutely no effect his ability to do CEO duties today. That was nothing more than a heckler’s veto situation, whereas Sterling has a long history of racism and racial discrimination in his businesses.

    These two situations have nothing in common.

  35. After reading all these comments, I had to reread the article again….
    what I still take away from all this is a wealthy old bastard has a very hot high dollar mistress… the old wealthy bastard is probably supporting her financialy,…. so he feels HE should be the one seen in public with her…..not the next ‘popular baller’ of the week….lest his golf buddies think he cant handle his mistress…
    sleazy, yes,….but racist….nope!

    1. He specifically takes issue with her being seen with black men. That is racist, plain and simple.

  36. Could all the idiots in the media PLEASE stop using the word racist when the accurate word is BIGOTRY?
    Words matter Nick. Racism in English is the belief in the inherent superiority of one “race” over another. Race is a complete construct anyway, created by bigots from the 18 century to justify racism.
    The word racism – rightly – inflames because we believe it is reprehensible to judge a group of people by the color of their skin. Nowhere in this article does this guy express a belief in the superiority of anyone over all people with black skin.

    This story is not about racism, but about an old douche bag whose whore wife is running around on him and he lack the balls to do anything about it.

    1. From Webster, definition 2 of racism: “racial prejudice or discrimination”

      This certainly falls under that.

      Furthermore, if you specifically take issue with your girlfriend being seen with men of a particular race, does that indicate that you view those men as inferior in some way due to their race?

      1. Calidissident|4.27.14 @ 2:16PM|

        “if you specifically take issue with your girlfriend being seen with men of a particular race, does that indicate that you view those men as inferior in some way due to their race?”

        In this case I view it as him feeling he is the inferior to the virile young ( compared to him) black men he doesn’t want her to be seen with in public. He doesn’t want his friends calling him to point out to him that his mistress is seeing black men to provide the satisfaction that his older ass can’t provide. He doesn’t care if she is fucking them, just don’t make a public issue of it and embarrass him.

        1. All that could be true, but the fact that he cares specifically whether or not they are black is racist. If he’s ok with here being seen with Larry Bird or Kevin Love, but not with Magic Johnson or LeBron James, then yeah, he’s racist.

          1. if tomorrow she switched to banging Puerto rican soccer players,….and being seen in public with them and all….I think he would have the same reaction…..he mentioned their skin color because, besides him….that’s all shes seen in public with….black guys

            1. He straight up told her not to bring black people to his games, and to not broadcast that she was associating with black people. If you seriously wanna do mental gymnastics to justify that as somehow not racial, then go ahead. I don’t understand why some people have such a hard time acknowledging something as racist. It’s not like Sterling deserves the benefit of the doubt here. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that a man who has long had a reputation as being a racist prick is actually a racist prick.

              1. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that a man who has long had a reputation as being a racist prick is actually a racist prick.

                If being sued by your tenants for alleged racial violations that get thrown out of court is being a “racist prick”, I suspect there are few wealthy income property owners in this country who don’t fit that definition.

                Then again, “racist prick” as you use the term ain’t exactly short company is it?

                1. And that’s really the problem with tossing the term around so loosely. It loses it’s effectiveness as a smear when it applies to everybody. Maybe this guy actually IS a total racist (or, on the other hand, maybe by pure chance his lady on the side was only stepping out with black guys and it pissed him off), but when everybody who opposes the latest immigration reform bill is a racist, or everybody who opposes affirmative action is a racist, or everybody who opposes public accommodations laws is a racist, or everybody who is insufficiently willing to socially ostracize racists is a racist, it devolves into meaninglessness.

                2. “If being sued by your tenants for alleged racial violations that get thrown out of court is being a “racist prick”, I suspect there are few wealthy income property owners in this country who don’t fit that definition.”

                  How closely do you follow the NBA? This really hasn’t been a secret, and the housing thing is far from the only thing people were going on. His settlement wasn’t run-of-the mill either, it set the record for largest settlement related to rental property discrimination, and was actually the second time he had to do it. It’s not ironclad proof of racism, by any means, but it’s not meaningless either. Combined with the countless number of people who have testified to him making racist comments and this audio, I completely fail to see how labeling him racist is some gross injustice. Am I supposed to believe there’s some multi-decade conspiracy to unfairly make Donald Sterling look racist?

                  “Then again, “racist prick” as you use the term ain’t exactly short company is it?”

                  What exactly are you basing this on? I’d love to see a record of me throwing that word around vigorously. I realize that many people use that word way too freely and I agree with you regarding the negative implications of that. But just because some people use the word too much doesn’t mean that some people aren’t actually racist, and calling a spade a spade doesn’t make me some hyper-sensitive PC tone police.

          2. Calidissident|4.27.14 @ 3:14PM| says:

            “but the fact that he cares specifically whether or not they are black is racist.”

            Only if the offended ( you in this case) sees all life interactions through race.

            He never said anything negative about her hanging with black women.

            It’s a sexual sterotype issue, not a racist one. He is an older man who doesn’t want his friends to know his mistress is fucking young black men. Not because they are black but because of the stereotype that young black men are very virile and all have big dicks. He clearly said he didn’t care if she WAS fucking them, he just didn’t want his friends pointing it out to him.

            But you go ahead and look at everything in life through a race lense.

            That makes you the racist.

            1. God, you are pathetic. Calling out obvious racism makes you racist? But demanding that your mistress not associate with black people isn’t racist? Impressive mental gymnastics there, gold medal worthy.

              “He never said anything negative about her hanging with black women.”

              Actually, he said ‘Don’t bring black people, and don’t come.'” Last time I checked, black women qualify as black people. But even it was just limited to black men, it is still racist.

              “It’s a sexual sterotype issue, not a racist one.”

              It’s both. It’s a stereotype specifically concerning men of a particular race. I don’t see how you can’t see how that’s racist, or how you are ignorant of the racist origins of the stereotype.

              “He clearly said he didn’t care if she WAS fucking them, he just didn’t want his friends pointing it out to him.”

              Ok, so he’s not racist, but he’s just demanding his mistress not associate with black people because he doesn’t want his racist friends to make fun of him? If you care that much about the opinions of racist people you voluntarily associate with, then you are racist yourself. And once again, this is Donald Sterling we’re talking about. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

              1. “Calling out obvious racism makes you racist?”

                You suffer from a delusion that everyone agrees with you as to what is obvious.

                “Ok, so he’s not racist, but he’s just demanding his mistress not associate with black people because he doesn’t want his racist friends to make fun of him?”

                Well you seem to be getting the picture.

                “If you care that much about the opinions of racist people you voluntarily associate with, then you are racist yourself.”

                No. Caring about what other people think isn’t racist. I think racism has a different definition than that.

                ” If you care that much about the opinions of racist people you voluntarily associate with, then you are racist yourself.”

                Nope. Racism isn’t defined by caring about what racists might think. Racism is something, but it isn’t that.

                “He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt in this situation.?

                So, guilty until proven innocent ?

                Are you a progressive/liberal ? That sounds like a statement that a liberal/progressive would make.

                But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I believe everyone is innocent UNLESS ( not the commonly espoused UNTIL ) proven guilty.

                1. “No. Caring about what other people think isn’t racist. I think racism has a different definition than that.”

                  If you value the opinions of racists so much that you demand other people not associate with people of a certain race, you are racist. By actions, if not by thought. But it’s a pathetic cop-out to pass the blame onto others, and if that’s his defense, he’s a spineless coward as well. This is granting him a huge benefit of the doubt in and of itself, by assuming that he only cares because some (undefined) other people care.

                  “So, guilty until proven innocent ?”

                  This isn’t a court of law, first off. Secondly, do you know why I said that? Sterling doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt precisely because he has already proven himself to be racist in the past on multiple occasions. This is common knowledge among people who follow the NBA, and he actually was found guilty of racial discrimination by a court in his real estate dealings.

                  1. he actually was found guilty of racial discrimination by a court in his real estate dealings.

                    No, he wasn’t. He settled a lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing.

                    1. You are correct on that point. Nonetheless, it seems a bit odd that old Donald keeps getting himself into situations where he’s forced to agree to pay millions of dollars in settlements, fines, and attorney fees (that was the second time it had happened). Not to mention the countless people testifying to hearing him make racist remarks, and the audio of these comments. When a guy has a reputation for being racist, has to pay more than one multimillion dollar settlements related to racial discrimination, has many different people testifying to him making racist comments, and is caught on tape making racist comments, is it really some sort of hasty leap to conclude that he’s racist? That was the whole point of my comment.

      2. Def# 2 is bullshit. If you search for the inclusion of that definition it’s modern – and consequently, in my opinion, bullshit because it is put there to accommodate the political correctness of the popular mis-use of the true meaning of racist. It provides an excuse for dumbing-down the discourse. And, honestly, I don’t need Webster to illustrate the difference between racist and bigoted.
        Look this guy is a dick. I don’t deny that, but it isn’t because he comments are racist. They’re bigoted.

        1. It’s a definition accepted by the vast majority of people, and it’s pretty ridiculous to say that racial hatred and discrimination is not racist as long as you don’t explicitly state that you’re doing it because you think the other race is inferior. If you don’t believe that another race is inferior, what reason is there to hate or discriminate against them? How can you hate and/or discriminate against an entire group of people and not think that they are in some way inferior?

          1. If I gave a crap about the “vast majority of people” (which isn’t an argument against my point) I’d be you.
            The expression of racial hatred IS racism. But that isn’t what he said. Where did he explicitly declare racial hatred? If he’d said “young guys” would he be an age hater? He’s a bigot. A douche bag and racially prejudiced, but not a racist. There are other fine (albeit not as inflammatory) terms to express his idiocy.

            1. “If I gave a crap about the “vast majority of people” (which isn’t an argument against my point) I’d be you.”

              What other way do words have meaning? It’s not like there’s some supreme arbiter that decided that racism will forever have only one meaning, that fits your definition.

              He’s “racially prejudiced” but not racist? Does he have to lynch someone before he actually becomes racist? He specifically has a problem with his GF associating publicly with black people. That is racism, plain and simple.

              “If he’d said “young guys” would he be an age hater?”

              If he said the same thing about young guys, I would think that would indicate animosity towards young men. One could at least see why he might be embarrassed by his GF publicly associating with young men. What reason, besides racism, is there for him to have that same reaction specifically towards black people? Notice I said people – which he also did. He specifically referred to black people, not black men.

    2. Race is a construct in the same sense that gravity is a construct. Crack a book.

      1. Dumbass, “race” is a construct. Maybe you need an explanation to understand construct. NO human being is of any race. There are only Homo sapiens. Race is absolutely not a biological idea, it’s a cultural (and pernicious) construct. Why do morons always imply that “cracking a book” solves the issue of critical thinking ability?

        1. “Species” is a construct… There is only a quantum field. Blah blah blah.

          Every concept is a “construct”.

          You should go and let 23andMe know that no human is of any race. They seem to think they can trace ethnicity with this silly little “construct” known as DNA.

          1. “‘Species’ is a construct.”

            Species at least has a somewhat objective definition that has biological significance.

            “You should go and let 23andMe know that no human is of any race. They seem to think they can trace ethnicity with this silly little “construct” known as DNA.”

            The fact that different populations have different DNA markers, or frequencies of certain alleles, says nothing as to how significant such differences are, or how a species is subdivided. Many groups within larger groups that we categorize together as a “race” have differences in DNA themselves. What objective, non-arbitrary way is their to divide the human population into subcategories that are biologically significant?

  37. The media shitstorm and player/former player comments over this are just fantastically hypocritical.

    1) It’s been known for a while that Sterling is racist. For the most part, he kept it to himself, but it was the basis of the Elgin Baylor’s lawsuit against him. It was tolerated as long as it wasn’t up front and in everyone’s face.

    2) This looks to be an attempt at Grigoreva-style shakedown by a spurned girlfriend.

    3) The comments by Doc Rivers and reactions from Clippers players are especially priceless. If they had any sort of principles, they’d boycott playing for Sterling and stop taking paychecks from him immediately, or at least donate them to charity until he either released them or the league removed him.

    In short, this is the latest episode in the saga of an increasingly decadent country.

  38. I had to reread the article again

    First rule of HnR:

    NEVER READ THE ARTICLES

  39. The guy was hit with a massive wave of jealousy when his half black girlfriend posed with a prominent black figure (Magic) and posted the pic on instagram. “Don’t bring bring black people into my games” is really “I’m afraid my black girlfriend will fall for a younger, wealthier black man.”

    It still a terrible thing to say, but he was DATING a black person. He approved of hiring a black coach.

    1. You can date or hire somehow and still be racist against that person’s race.

      1. *someone

      2. Explain how.

        1. Really? The hiring part I should especially not have to explain, if you’re unaware that black people have been employed by racist white people for a long time, then I don’t what to say other than to open a history book. One can look down on another race and still be willing to use them to make money.

          As for the dating part, again, just cause Sterling is willing to stick his dick in a young, attractive half-black woman who will let him, doesn’t mean that he can’t simultaneously hold negative views of black people in general. Making special exceptions for individual black people doesn’t mean you don’t look down on them as a race, especially when we’re talking about something sexual. Racial fetishism isn’t new. Strom Thurmond fathered a child with a black woman, and countless slave owners did so with black slaves, it doesn’t mean they weren’t racist. Hell, the KKK guy that shot up the Jewish community center was arrested in the 80s after being caught with a black, male prostitute. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a racist, sexist asshole.

          1. *I meant to say homophobic instead of sexist, but he was probably that too.

            1. Let me preface this by saying I’m not interested in any way about Sterling, to the point I’m not going to look into his past or practices. And I’m certainly not going to condemn someone for edited audio from a private conversation. If you want to look at history, there’s a lot of precedent showing that’s a really bad idea.

              I don’t care if the NBA fires him or if the NAACP withdraws his lifetime achievement award.

              My only interest in this issue is that it is yet another case where the term racist is used awfully quickly and with a great deal of venom in our society.

              Is he racist because of what he thinks or what he does? I’m not that willing to say what’s in a person’s thoughts. He dates a black woman. And I’m not sure how your “history book” comment is at all pertinent to his hiring practices. This is a man that pays black players millions and from what little I’ve read has hired black coaches and executives. I’ve not seen anything that indicates he pays or treats his black players differently from white players. If in his actions he hasn’t not exhibited racism, and the fact that he’s supposed to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP would seem to indicate he hasn’t, then I’m not willing to tar the guy with the term racist.

              I also won’t say he isn’t. I don’t know enough about him, and am not all that interested. But that’s just my attitude. I’m sure it’s just a dog-whistle that I’m racist.

              1. If you’re taking the stance that you want to wait until you have 100% confirmation that he said those things, then ok.

                But if we’re operating under the assumption that he did say those things – how the fuck can you possibly spin demanding that someone not publicly associate with people of a particular race as racist?

                “Is he racist because of what he thinks or what he does?”

                Both

                “He dates a black woman.”

                That doesn’t make him not racist.

                “And I’m not sure how your “history book” comment is at all pertinent to his hiring practices.”

                My point was that history clearly shows that hiring a black person to make money off of them doesn’t make you not racist. If Sterling wasn’t willing to hire black players in the NBA, he would have a pretty awful product and wouldn’t be making money. He does, however, have a reputation for being a very stingy owner. I don’t know if racism is behind that or not.

                “If in his actions he hasn’t not exhibited racism”

                Unless the tape is fake, he has just now. Not to mention his previous comments, like his plantation fantasy of having a black team with a white Southern coach, or his housing discrimination settlement.

                “and the fact that he’s supposed to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP would seem to indicate he hasn’t,”

                Not anymore. And since when is the NAACP the ultimate arbiter of racism? I seriously doubt you take their word as seriously in every situation.

                1. He does, however, have a reputation for being a very stingy owner. I don’t know if racism is behind that or not.

                  Nah, that’s probably just because he’s a Jew.

                  (That’s sarcasm before you get your panties in a bunch)

              2. “I’m sure it’s just a dog-whistle that I’m racist.”

                Nope, but I am unsure as to why you have so much trouble calling a spade a spade.

                1. I’m surprised you’re showing such restraint.

                  1. Oh really?

      3. You can date or hire somehow and still be racist against that person’s race.

        Then what is the problem? If one’s “racism” doesn’t necessarily affect one’s actions, then why would racism be a problem?

        Are we concerned with thought, or with actions? If thought, then everyone is guilty of every untoward thought that might have popped into their heads. If it is action that we’re concerned with, then we hold people accountable not for their thoughts but for whether they eventually act on those thoughts.

        This is what self awareness and self control are about: choosing the “right” action regardless of the impulse or thought.

        1. “Then what is the problem? If one’s “racism” doesn’t necessarily affect one’s actions, then why would racism be a problem?”

          You’re making a massive leap in logic by assuming that just cause Sterling (or someone else like him) is willing to fuck a hot young black girl, or hire black people in the NBA, that he doesn’t let his racism affect his actions. For Christ’s sake, he was demanding that his GF stop publicly associating with black people and bringing them to his games – how is that not racism affecting his actions?

          1. *And I should add on to that his prior history is further evidence that this is not the case.

            1. He told his girlfriend not to associate with black people when she posed with Magic Johnson, which tells me that his remarks on black people is more about marking his territory. In the video he mentions that “minorities are fabulous” and otherwise tries to deny that he’s a racist. I could be wrong.

              I’m not white, and I don’t care what happens to Sterling. I’m rather enjoying another “tolerant” democrat being exposed for who he is. I’m just offering a more nuanced opinion what could have happened.

              Is he still racist? Can someone hate the group but feel affection for an individual of that group? Sure. Sterling made news when he made comments about favoring Korean tenants over Latinos. But it’s also possible that he ran his mouth and introduced race in a heated discussion with his girlfriend. Which happens in Hollywood all the time.

              1. “He told his girlfriend not to associate with black people when she posed with Magic Johnson, which tells me that his remarks on black people is more about marking his territory.”

                I don’t care what his personal motivation was, but if he specifically has a problem with his GF associating with black people, but not white people (or people of other races), then he is racist. Is he ok with white people “coming onto his territory?”

                “But it’s also possible that he ran his mouth and introduced race in a heated discussion with his girlfriend. Which happens in Hollywood all the time.”

                That’s certainly possible, but I don’t see how it precludes him being racist. Especially given his past history.

          2. My point is that there is a difference between what a person is and what a person does.

            I have no love or respect for Sterling. But I’m more concerned about the growing McCarthy-ish trend to root out racism wherever it might be perceived. If we punish people for what they may have thought, instead of what they actually did, we have made thinking a crime.

            Using an audio clip, edited by someone with an axe to grind, as evidence of a thought crime is a seriously dangerous trend to me. Evidently it’s ok with you.

            1. Remind me where me or anyone else advocated using government force against Donald Sterling or criminalizing his thoughts. I’ll wait.

              1. Progressives–by definition–recognize no important distinctions between the government solving problems like this and free individuals solving problems like this.

                Hell, most of them seem to think that whatever rights Bundy had in regards to the BLM were forfeited the moment he said something racist.

              2. Where was there any reference to government force in the post to which you replied? He said:

                If we punish people for what they may have thought, instead of what they actually did, we have made thinking a crime.

                There are ways of punishing people for things without bringing the state into it. People have different thresholds they think merit ostracism. For some people it’s nearly everything. For others, it’s literally nothing. Most people land on a spectrum somewhere inbetween.

                1. And like I said, progressive recognize no important distinction between government action and private actions.

                  The importance of that distinction, it being okay so long as the government isn’t involved–is a libertarian feature, not a progressive one.

                  Somebody find me a progressive that says it’s okay for a stupid racist to fly the confederate flag–so long the idiot isn’t flying above a government building. They’ll never say that!

                  That’s what makes them progressive.

                  Progressive is the belief that the government should be used to force people to sacrifice their individual rights for the public good–as they see the public good. Why shouldn’t we presume they would use the government to criminalize speech if they could?

                  1. Sorry Ken, your reply wasn’t there when I posted so the nesting was screwed up. That was addressed to Cali.

                  2. So after all that, you have not one example of anyone, here or anywhere else, advocating government action against Sterling?

                2. He uses the term “McCarthy-ish” and says that we have made thinking a crime – either he thinks people are advocating government force, or thinks that voluntary private actions are comparable to McCarthy-ism or making thought a crime.

  40. The racism on this board is funny to see.

    Its amazing how much racism is defended on this board, then a lot of you seem to wonder why the movement is so small and limited to a shrinking demographic.

    Donald sterling is a disgusting racist POS.
    His actions before this demonstrated that.
    there is nothing wrong with calling him what he is a racist POS.

    As for should he be fired, that is a contractual matter with him and the owners. No one unless they have seen the owners agreement and the rules they have subjected themselves to can have an informed opinion regarding whether he should be fired or not.

    * Just an aside being a libertarian doesn’t mean you have no moral standards and can not publicly dislike or support actions or ideals. Why a great deal of you on this site seem to want to promote racism and bigotism is strange to me. there is a clear difference between whether a person can do something and whether you think they should do something.

    1. how is it promoting racism???…
      my view on race….let the racist scream and shout their views….then no one has any doubts of their bigotry. why would one want the racists to hide and conceal their true feelings and opinions??
      as an aside…..why is it that the same people who demand racists hide and conceal their bigotry,…they go ape shit when others demand the same of gay community???

      1. add:..concealing who they really are…

        1. Who is the strawman you are arguing against?

          How is it promoting racism?

          You mean people out there defending Sterling by claiming oh but the conversation was meant to be private oh but he is sleeping with a mixed woman, and etc. are defending him and trying to make light of his views?

          Every thing else you posted is useless drivel with no purpose other than to obfuscate the main topic of my post you replied to.

          You can be and believe what ever you want without the government being allowed to persecute you. Other private citizens can take whatever non-violent means they want to denounce you or state how they disagree.

          If you want to open up the libertarian movement to more than just white males, jumping to support racists and racism because its anti-pc or whatever rationale you want to use is a poor decision.

          1. Other private citizens can take whatever non-violent means they want to denounce you or state how they disagree.

            Nobody disputes that part either, some people just have different personal thresholds at which they’re willing to resort to ostracism. Ironically enough, total intolerance of any form of intolerance is more likely to split people up by clan/tribe/politics/race/gender/sexuality/whatever because it is increasingly impossible to associate with anyone with whom you aren’t in lockstep, rigid ideological agreement without compromising your livelihood. Maybe it’s a better society where you have to make all of your political donations through a Tor browser and 7 proxies with an anonymous prepaid debit card, or where you have to strip search every person with whom you have a conversation to check for wires before you say something stupid in the heat of an argument, or maybe not. Either way, nobody owes you their agreement on how to handle matters of personal morality, regardless the implications for libertarianism as a “movement” — since most people’s only real familiarity with the topic is drug legalization and consumer regulation, on which they already vehemently disagree with libertarian philosophy, it’s probably not as big an issue as you think anyway. However, it should be noted that libertarianism thanks you for your deep concern.

            1. Who is arguing for total tolerance of everything.

              That you post this when I clearly say everyone has a right to their opinion yet ask, why are there so many people who are a part of this site and the libertarian movement who go out of their way to defend racism.

              it is simply a deflection of the question raised. If you can’t answer it fine, that is on you, but to try to call me a troll because I ask a question about the community here speaks volumes about how you really want to kill discussion about why some in this community argue for, which is in some instances racism and promotion of racism.

              1. That you post this when I clearly say everyone has a right to their opinion yet ask, why are there so many people who are a part of this site and the libertarian movement who go out of their way to defend racism.

                I see the problem now. My point was too subtle. Let’s try again:

                You’re completely full of shit. Outside of a couple of trolls like ‘murican, nobody here defends racism or racists. You will, however, find many people defending the rights of racists, and you may even run into people who generally are unwilling to resort to social or market ostracism of people with whom they disagree. The fact that you can’t differentiate those things and can only regurgitate the word “racism” like a trained parrot speaks volumes about your desire to kill discussion by smearing anyone who isn’t sufficiently deferential to your opinion. Go fuck yourself.

          2. David_TheMan,

            You should have seen the Bundy threads a few days ago. To think libertarians damn others for being part of a TEAM and defending all their ‘mates regardless of what they do.

      2. “as an aside…..why is it that the same people who demand racists hide and conceal their bigotry,…they go ape shit when others demand the same of gay community???”

        You really can’t see why some people might be ok with gay people openly living their lives, harming nobody, without being judged negatively, but might take a different stance when it comes to people spewing racial hatred?

        *I certainly don’t support coercive action against racists who do not initiate coercion themselves, and I personally don’t have a problem with racist people making their views known, as I can then make an informed decision not to associate with them. Criticizing racists for saying racist things, but not criticizing gay people for being gay is not hypocritical.

        1. Criticizing racists for saying racist things, but not criticizing gay people for being gay is not hypocritical.

          Criticizing people for refusing to associate with other people based on their personal value judgments when you are doing the exact same thing does kind of make you a hypocrite though. That your value judgments have the blessing of the enlightened majority doesn’t change the fundamental principle. If you ever somehow found yourself outside the enlightened majority (lol!), that viewpoint might backfire on you.

          1. “Criticizing people for refusing to associate with other people based on their personal value judgments when you are doing the exact same thing does kind of make you a hypocrite though.”

            Only if I accept the premise that all personal value judgments are equally valid. Seriously, this is pathetic justification. Refusing to associate with someone because they refuse to associate with others (or dislike associating with others) based on race, sexual orientation, etc. is not the same thing as refusing to associate with someone based on race, sexual orientation, etc. This is basically saying “Disliking racists is just as bad as racism!” Which is stupid. Everyone makes personal value judgments, and I highly doubt that in some way, such judgments do not affect who or how you associate with others.

            “That your value judgments have the blessing of the enlightened majority doesn’t change the fundamental principle.”

            Who said anything about the majority? Where did I say that I’m right cause most people agree with me?

            “If you ever somehow found yourself outside the enlightened majority (lol!), that viewpoint might backfire on you.”

            If someone doesn’t want to associate with me, that’s their prerogative. I fail to see how that means I must logically associate with everyone and can’t disassociate myself with another person for some reason. And I fail to see how me doing so would have any impact on the people doing it to me.

          2. And once again, nowhere have I advocated government repression of any viewpoint. All I’ve done in this thread is dispute the notion the Sterling’s comments weren’t necessarily racist, or that he isn’t racist, and in this case, dispute the notion that disliking racists = disliking gay people.

    2. You’re a fucking idiot.

      We routinely denounce racists around here. ‘care to be specific about any particular comment in this thread?

      You call us bigots? We were arguing for gay marriage around here back when Barack Obama’s position on gay marriage was indistinguishable from that of the Southern Baptist Convention’s. How disgraceful! A president that ran on wanting to use the government to discriminate against gay people!

      What you see here in this thread is libertarians who won’t get all wound up and twisted on the issues just because the media served up the outrage of the day…again.

      Meanwhile, Barack Obama continues to prosecute the Drug War–the most overtly racist government policy since Jim Crow. You want to talk about racism? Talk about this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…..prisonment

      One in three black men will be in prison at some point in their lives–in no small part due to the Drug War…

      http://www.sentencingproject.o…..cfm?id=122

      …but you’re all hot and bothered because of what some stupid NBA owner said?!

      1. Calm down junior. I didn’t call everyone on here racist nor most.

        Shit I’ve been on this site for atleast 4 years myself. So cut the crying and moaning.

        My reply also goes to posts on this page that are defending the racism of Sterling. Read it and get back to me.

        When you have something rational to direct at me instead of the ranting and ravings of someone unhinged, reply to me.

        1. Which comments, precisely, are you talking about?

          1. Comments that I”m referring to

            https://reason.com/blog/2014/04…..nt_4474520

            https://reason.com/blog/2014/04…..nt_4474798

            Just a few of the comments on this thread that struck a nerve with me.

            1. Whats wrong with those comments? How do you even function in society if you’re that easily offended?

              1. Whats wrong with them?
                In my opnion they seek to excuse the racist actions of Sterling and is such a weak manner that I have to question why it is even being attempted.

                As for how I function perfectly fine. sorry that now you have nothing left but to attack me than actually make a point.

            2. It struck a nerve with you because you’re incapable of a nuanced discussion. And like 99% of doe eyed Americans that selectively explode in rage when something like this happens, you probably have zero meaningful relationship with a non white person.

              I opened door for the possibility that Donald Sterling is not the cartoonish caricature of a “racist” that often captures the imagination of the left. I don’t deny that it was still the wrong to say.

              Is it condoning “racism” to note that Sterling has associated himself with blacks, spent money on their behalf, and paid a fair amount to black employees? He could be a “Stealth racist”. Or he feared his girlfriend may leave an old white man and start hanging around with someone from her own group. It’s theory.

              “But it’s still racist!” Yes it is, but we can still discuss the nature and reach. It’s fairly common in Asian cultures to “encourage” in house relationship. But that upsets me less than actual policy that legally compels discrimination. I may also object to seeing my friends lose their jobs over “racist” comments they made.

              The guy told his girlfriend not to hang out with black people. He can’t actually make her do that. He has not or lacks the authority to exclude black people on his whim. This was lunch conversation for me and my Asian friends. The fact that I’m not losing sleep over this doesn’t mean I’m promoting racism.

              You don’t have to feel offended for my sake because I’m not white. I can do that on my own.

            3. From John’s “problem” comment one:

              The progs’ goal is to make it efectively impossible to say unapproved things even in private without risking your job and livelyhood. They have spent 60 years accomplishing this with racial speech. They have almost accomplished the same thing in 20 years with homosexuality. They will move on to something else and always make the society less tolerant of their enemies.

              I don’t like Sterling either but if they can do it to him about this, they can and will eventualky do it to a lot of other people for a lot of other things.”

              That is a legitimate argument that brings up some reasonable concerns about free speech–and not only isn’t in any way racist, he specifically says he doesn’t like Sterling!

              John sticking up for someone’s right to say stupid things in private is not the same as condoning racism. If it were, then standing up for Sandusky’s right to a free trial would be the same as condoning child molestation–it is so NOT the same thing!

              1. No one’s advocating taking away Sterling’s right to say what he wants to say.

                1. Go argue with John about that.

                  The point is that John’s statement wasn’t racist.

                  1. I agree that John’s statement wasn’t racist. I said above that I didn’t see any racist comments in this thread. However, I have seen a large number of comments trying to somehow explain Sterling’s statements as somehow not racist. I’m sorry, but that’s absurd. And once again, given Donald Sterling’s past actions, this isn’t a situation where he deserves the benefit of any doubt that there may be.

            4. From the second comment you linked:

              “It still a terrible thing to say, but he was DATING a black person. He approved of hiring a black coach.”

              Did the comment condone what Sterling said?

              No, it described Sterling’s statement as terrible.

              Is there a difference between saying racist things and being a racist in your personal relationships and hiring practices?

              Yes!

              Anyhow, I don’t think that post was overtly racist either–it certainly wasn’t racist for describing Sterling’s statement as “terrible”.

              1. If banging a black woman is proof of non-racism, most antebellum plantation owners weren’t racist either.

                1. Take that up with XM. Didn’t Sterling suggest he didn’t want to be seen around black people? That’s a complicated thing to say to your black girlfriend, isn’t it? Does pointing out that contradiction mean that XM is racist?

                  The correct answer is no.

                  Point is that XM said Sterling’s statement was terrible–he certainly wasn’t condoning what Sterling said, and there’s no reason to slam the thread and the libertarians in it for that comment.

                  I’m usually the first guy to talk about how (usually misogyny) this kind of thing can negatively impact us in the general public’s eyes, but I just don’t see that kind of thing happening here. In fact, when I see real racists show up around here, I usually see everyone jump on them for it.

                2. I think this is an interesting theoretical question. Imagine two racists. One who is willing to bang black women, and the other who is not.

                  I’d have to say the one willing to bang is less racist than the one not willing.

      2. You nailed it.

        I’m so frustrated by the media’s “outrage” of the week, which is usually some dumb ass saying something dumb, when things like the WOD and police/state abuse (I repeat myself) are ignored.

        Nobody knows who Kelly Thomas was, but now this Sterling nonsense will be the #1 topic of conversation on TV, at work, at the bar, etc for the next week.

        1. That’s true about pretty much everything the media covers. Celebrities capture attention, as do strange events (Malaysian plane), so that’s what gets coverage, unfortunately. How much coverage is this story getting outside of sports media (I don’t watch the MSM)? It’s not surprising that ESPN is making this a big story, and not police abuse, nor is that some sort of outrage. You do have a point with regards to general news groups.

    3. David_TheMan

      ” Why a great deal of you on this site seem to want to promote racism and bigotism is strange to me.”

      bigotism ? Do you mean bigotry ? Would the word bigotry have fit into your sentence structure there ? Why did you feel the need to “ism” it ?

      You seem to be an “ism” czar.

      1. Use what ever you want to when you write, if you were looking to ignore the actual substance of my post to engage in pedanticism, I won’t be playing that game with you.

        1. You seem to be an “ism” czar.

          …pedanticism

          You’re not helping yourself…

          1. He must be suffering from M?nchausenism.

            lol

    4. So have you excommunicated everyone who was ever in your life with any kind of bigotry?

      Maybe Libertarians are just more used to the idea that people hold all sorts of offensive beliefs – like that we’re property of the State – and realize that excommunicating everyone with such heinous ideas would require living in a cave.

      In short, maybe the *tolerant* people are those who live and let live, instead of chasing after blasphemers with pitch forks.

      1. So have you excommunicated everyone who was ever in your life with any kind of bigotry?

        If the relationship is of the economic transaction variety, and replacements are available, then yes.

  41. I care about government interfering with free speech. Corporations can handle their own personnel problems.
    I wish Reason would limit posts to one or two per person per article.These endless bitch fights stifle conversation. And yes,I said bitch fight.

  42. Hm, I hadn’t noticed the racism on this board. I noticed the vulgar language but mostly ignore it due to the fact that so much else here is intelligent and funny. (And because sometimes when I read the newspaper I find myself silently thinkin, “F*uck off, slaver”)

    I also noticed a casual use of the word ‘retarded’ which I feel uncomfortable with but am able to mostly ignore.

    Unless declining to join the mob that is after the racist of the day is considered racist, I’m really not seeing it.

  43. What mob is after a racist.
    this is what I’m talking about.
    No one is saying they want Sterling’s life or the government to do anything.
    they are using their right as private citizens and customers to talk to a supplier. Which is their right and entirely consistant with libertarian ideals.

    What is to be gained by defending racists with the only objective being, I’m not with “the crowd” as the sole motive?

    1. What mob is after a racist.
      this is what I’m talking about.
      No one is saying they want Sterling’s life or the government to do anything.

      THIS (above) is not what you were talking about at all. Below is what you started off with.

      The racism on this board is funny to see.

      Its amazing how much racism is defended on this board, then a lot of you seem to wonder why the movement is so small and limited to a shrinking demographic.

      You seem to equate the lack of a mob reaction to Sterling’s “racist” remarks as “promotion” of racism, “defense” of racism, and just outright racism. Then, when called on your inaccuracies, you claim to have said something else.

      Are you so against even the hint of racism that you will toss out free speech? Are you unwilling to give someone the benefit of doubt by questioning claims made against them? Are you so bent on burning out racism that you will proclaim someone guilty without due process or, in this case, discussion? Because it seems that you are calling racist anyone and everyone who questions the claims made against Sterling. So, all who refuse to pick up pitchforks and drive the accused out of town are guilty by association?

      1. “Are you so against even the hint of racism that you will toss out free speech?”

        I don’t see where he did this. I do agree with you that David isn’t accurate in labeling the comments here as racist. I didn’t see any that would qualify as such IMO. However, there are quite a few people trying to spin comments that were plainly racist, coming from a guy who has long had a reputation as being racist, as somehow not necessarily racist, and I’m not really sure why those people feel the need to perform extensive mental gymnastics to avoid the conclusion that is obvious and likely.

      2. The above is exactly what I am talking about.

        Sorry buddy, you don’t have the authority to try to force me to believe what you believe or accept the premises you are trying to ground my comment/s on.

        No I don’t equate a lack of reaction to Sterling as racist. I attack the mob reaction routinely on this site in the comment sections with defending outright racist actions and speech as some how acceptable.

        Like I said before there is a clear distinction between recognizing someones ability to say something and supporting what someone says. Far too often on this board you have a lot who seem to think that by supporting racist speech or actions that makes them enlightened or above the fray.

        It doesn’t and it closes off the very positive message of libertarianism by appearance alone to a large group of people and for no reason at all.

        1. Sorry buddy, you don’t have the authority to try to force me to believe what you believe or accept the premises you are trying to ground my comment/s on.

          Lol. Movie theaters don’t project this much.

        2. Far too often on this board you have a lot who seem to think that by supporting racist speech or actions that makes them enlightened or above the fray.

          And again, you are completely, 100% full of shit. The 2 examples you cited aren’t even close. Go. Fuck. Your. Self.

    2. Meh, I think people are just tired of the racist witch hunt. 99.9% of accusations of racism are pure bullshit, and at this point my first reaction is to assume its all bullshit, or just some minor annoyance.

      Sterling would get less negative press had he cut someone’s head off with a samurai sword. I guess my thought is- what’s the big deal? Did he hurt someone? Steal from someone? He expressed his desire for his GF to not be seen publicly with black guys (yet screwing them is fine?). Might this offend some black guys? Maybe, but who cares. I’m tired of everyone thinking they shouldn’t be offended. I feel like I’m required to proclaim my allegiance to the cause of eradicating hurt feelings by calling him a racist when really I just don’t give a fuck and think those that are offended should sit in the corner and be offended quietly or shut the fuck up. It seems pretty contrived when I hear and see worse things daily.

      1. There is some fatigue, here.

        Anyone who has criticized Obama over the last five years has been called a racist for it in the media. At some point, yeah, that boy who cried wolf fatigue can start to set in.

        …which is a great reason to call out those who use the term “racism” lightly. It makes some people start to ignore the charge of racism when they shouldn’t. For instance, the Drug War really is objectively racist.

  44. Its amazing how much racism is defended on this board, then a lot of you seem to wonder why the movement is so small and limited to a shrinking demographic.

    DRINK!

  45. Magic Johnson, who is specifically discussed in the tape, has said that he won’t attend a Clippers game until Sterling is gone.

    Lol. That’ll show him! (Wasn’t that kinda what he wanted?)

    Do they bring embarassament and scorn upon not only the Clippers but the NBA? Yes

    Uh, no. Why would this guy’s comments made in a personal conversation between himself and his girlfriend bring embarrassment or scorn on the Clippers, who didn’t make the comments, or the NBA, which didn’t make the comments? How about we not legitimize the concept of collective responsibility for things not said or done collectively.

    1. You can argue whether it should, but I don’t think you can argue that his comments actually don’t, to some extent, embarrass the NBA and the Clippers to some extent. He is the owner of the Clippers organization and one of 30 owners that make up the NBA, so it’s not hard to see how his actions can affect how people perceive those organizations.

      1. If the NBA or anybody on the Clippers staff who isn’t this guy are embarrassed by what he said then they are morons accepting guilt for something they didn’t do. And anybody projecting guilt onto the NBA or the rest of the Clippers staff for something they didn’t do is an even bigger moron.

        1. I don’t disagree with that. I hated the Clippers before this, and still do. And will do. Sterling makes it easier, but I don’t hold anyone else responsible for his views and actions. That said, I was simply making a descriptive statement about the reality – stuff like this does affect the image of the NBA and the Clippers, regardless of whether or not you or I think it should.

    2. I don’t think anyone is saying that everyone in the Clippers org is racist because of Sterling’s comments. But it does look bad if they continue working to make money for a stated racist.

      As for the “private conversation” angle, the measure of a man is what he does when he thinks no one is looking. It was bush league for the ex to make the tapes public, but his statements cannot be unheard now that they’ve been heard. This isn’t a courtroom and we’re not the jury.

      1. But it does look bad if they continue working to make money for a stated racist.

        Why? They probably weren’t aware of his personal viewpoints when they were hired, nor are his personal viewpoints particularly relevant to their business relationship with the man, nor does their business relationships imply any endorsement of him or his viewpoints. You ever worked for an asshole? Did you feel guilty about it?

        As for the “private conversation” angle, the measure of a man is what he does when he thinks no one is looking.

        That wasn’t remotely my point. My point was that this was a personal viewpoint he expressed in private to his girlfriend. It’s not like he put out a memo or a press release informing his staff or the league or making that the official position of the team or something. The league and his staff are no more responsible or guilty for this guy’s private phone conversations as they are for his tax returns. Gillespie’s statement is total bullshit acquiescence to the concept of collective responsibility.

  46. And if so, how is this different from the issues surrounding Eich’s ouster from Mozilla?

    There’s no evidence that Eich actually harbored ill will toward gay people, he just opposed SSM; and even if he did it was 6 years before he became CEO.

    This is totally different because, assuming the audio is correct, Sterling was very clear about his racist beliefs, and it happened just a few weeks ago.

  47. I would love to hear the kind of shit that Eric Holder, Obama, and his pig wife say to each other about white people when they’re alone having private conversations.

    1. No kidding.

      Although it would be pretty galling given Obama is, you know, half-white.

      1. The question is, which half?

        1. (for the benefit of the racism brigade, that’s a joke btw)

  48. just a reminder that clippers owner donald sterling has the funniest deposition in the history of law: pic.twitter.com/2RNqx3wY2k

  49. Even racist pieces of shit will associate with minorities if they know they can make money. It should be obvious, but you still hear liberals today blame “the market” for segregation and discrimination.

  50. This story goes to show you can be a putz and still become a multimillionaire. Voicing such incendiary comments to a person who clearly exists as a potential liability is just brutally dumb.

  51. A lot of the libertarians on this site, the writer of this article included, don’t seem to understand the issue and sound really ignorant and pretentious. Even if I agreed with EVERYTHING Sterling said, I’d still want him kicked out of the NBA. That IS the free market working on its own.This is a collectively bargained revenue sharing league he’s a part of. He’s not an island, and when he basically destroys the future hopes of one of the top teams in the league of resigning any good players, that’s a big problem, especially for smaller markets that count on some revenue sharing from him. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Even if you agree with him, this is just bad for business and grounds for dismissal from the NBA.

    1. I believe this is a privacy issue, however, in addition to what you said. While this may lead to Sterling being forced to sell the Clippers (because, yes, I agree that the words were heinous), he said these things in a private conversation without giving permission that his words publicized. I doubt ANY of us — including the people now criticizing him — can honestly say they say say politically correct things 100% of the time in private conversations.

      1. Well yes it is an invasion of his privacy by his ho, but that has no bearing on whether he needs to sell the team. The words are out there now, people can no longer turn a blind eye to this guy being racist. Also, if I were running a huge business in a field where the overwhleming majority of people are black, I might keep it a little closer to the vest that I hated black people. Like maybe not ranting about it for 15 minutes to a black prostitute on the phone. He deserves to be kicked out of the NBA and I think every owner with a stake in the NBA company will agree.

  52. This is silly. Sterling is a notorious slumlord who’s said racist things in the past, including after he took possession of the Clippers. His company was sued for discriminatory practices less than a decade ago. The ONLY reason anybody cares now is because the Clippers are good (last night’s game notwithstanding).

    Regardless, he said these things in a private conversation. We don’t know the context and we don’t know if/how this recording was edited to make it look worse. I’m quite sure if everybody criticizing him now had their private conversations sifted through, they’d look just as bad as Mr. Sterling (I know for a fact I can be easily tarred as racist (against ANY race), bigoted, anti-corporation, anti-union, anti-whatever, if my private conversations were ever made public). To me, this is nothing more than an invasion of privacy.

  53. Sterling is obviously entitled to his opinions and his critics to theirs. But no one is entitled to snoop and eavesdrop.

  54. Magic Johnson is going to stay away from Clippers games until he owns the team in a year or two. I wonder when Magic will no-look pass an envelope of cash to V. Stiviano.

  55. The NBA is a private organization with its own bylaws to which Mr. Sterling agreed and only through which he was able to assume ownership of the Clippers, an NBA franchise. If Mr. Sterling has violated the bylaws then the prescribed remedies may be applied, including requiring him to surrender the franchise.

  56. how is it promoting racism???…
    my view on race….let the racist scream and shout their views….then no one has any doubts of their bigotry. why would one want the racists to hide and conceal their true feelings and opinions??
    Voter ID
    Election commission of India

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.