Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: OT: Donald Sterling, good riddance
Page: 2 of 3
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 4/30/2014 4:38 PM
cc cat wrote:expand_more
A few owners in the NBA have been outspoken critics of gay marriage and some have even donated money to groups trying to prevent passage of laws.  I would think the NBA should want to crack down on these bigots as well?  

Yes, thou shall think like I think, or thou shall be destroyed--by any means necessary


From a business standpoint it is one thing to support an amendment, and another to say you do not want a certain group as a customer base ("I do not want them at my games") - especially a customer base that you share with 29 other franchisees.

Remember, he does not own the LA Clippers.  He owns the NBA franchise assigned to LA known as the Clippers.

I assume your quote "I do not want them at my games" is an example, or is that real? I am not aware of any similar comment made by an NBA owner, but then, I don't pay much attention to the NBA. 

 
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 4/30/2014 10:46 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
A few owners in the NBA have been outspoken critics of gay marriage and some have even donated money to groups trying to prevent passage of laws. I would think the NBA should want to crack down on these bigots as well?


Yes, thou shall think like I think, or thou shall be destroyed--by any means necessary.

Not saying you have to agree, that's what's great about America. You still have to deal with the consequences of beliefs tho. No difference between being a bigot based on race or based on sexual preference. It's the civil rights battle of this generation, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out through college athletics.
Donuts
General User
D
Member Since: 9/22/2010
Post Count: 734
person
mail
Donuts
mail
Posted: 4/30/2014 11:13 PM
100%Cat wrote:expand_more



To the extent I have any problem with the Sterling punishment (and it's a very minimal problem.....from a business standpoint you cannot have Sterling associated with the league any longer), this is it. Sterling has a long history of saying/doing stupid/offensive/racist things, and the hammer should have dropped a long time ago so that we now don't have people like Shaq (who is unquestionably more high profile than Sterling from a marketing standpoint) saying/doing equally stupid/offensive things.

The outrage seems inconsistent. You could blame David Stern for not doing anything in the past, but to my knowledge the league hasn't officially addressed Shaq's current stupidity.


Wouldn't Shaq have to be affiliated with the league to be punished by the league?  Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he was an announcer with TNT, not working directly for the NBA.


Shaq is a minority owner of the Kings.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 7:03 AM
The owners will vote to force him to sell but it will largely be symbolic.  He can tie that up in the courts for years.  The real power lies with the players.  If I were a player, I wouldn't allow him to make a dime.  Refuse to play.  Or better yet, to avoid a breach of contract suit, suit up then just stand and watch the other team score tons of points.  It would soon make his franchise worthless.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,821
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 7:46 AM
Donuts wrote:expand_more



To the extent I have any problem with the Sterling punishment (and it's a very minimal problem.....from a business standpoint you cannot have Sterling associated with the league any longer), this is it. Sterling has a long history of saying/doing stupid/offensive/racist things, and the hammer should have dropped a long time ago so that we now don't have people like Shaq (who is unquestionably more high profile than Sterling from a marketing standpoint) saying/doing equally stupid/offensive things.

The outrage seems inconsistent. You could blame David Stern for not doing anything in the past, but to my knowledge the league hasn't officially addressed Shaq's current stupidity.


Wouldn't Shaq have to be affiliated with the league to be punished by the league?  Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he was an announcer with TNT, not working directly for the NBA.


Shaq is a minority owner of the Kings.


You mean Queens?
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 7:51 AM
the123kid wrote:expand_more
No difference between being a bigot based on race or based on sexual preference.



There is a difference. The first is illegal. The second is not. 

 
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 9:15 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
No difference between being a bigot based on race or based on sexual preference.



There is a difference. The first is illegal. The second is not. 

 

It certainly isn't illegal to be racist....Morally wrong, yes, but no illegal.  The same would be said for both...

 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 9:32 AM
the123kid wrote:expand_more

It certainly isn't illegal to be racist....Morally wrong, yes, but no illegal.  The same would be said for both...

 

That's true 

Anyone find larry Johnson's comments equally as painful,,,,,or is it that I am old enough to celebrate the advances we have made in America that makes his call for an ALL BLACK league disturbing? Since he works in the Knicks front office will the NBA have the balls to enact a similar punishment .....or is it only bad to be racist if you are not part of a class that has been oppressed? As the only white guy in the room/Park/Gym in a lot of cases I think racism from any source is mighty disconcerting. 

socialnewsdaily.com/37594/nba-legend-larry-johnson-calls-for-all-black-league-twitter-reacts/


Last Edited: 5/1/2014 9:36:09 AM by bornacatfan
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,696
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 9:39 AM
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more

It certainly isn't illegal to be racist....Morally wrong, yes, but no illegal.  The same would be said for both...

 

That's true 

Anyone find larry Johnson's comments equally as painful,,,,,or is it that I am old enough to celebrate the advances we have made in America that makes his call for an ALL BLACK league disturbing? Since he works in the Knicks front office will the NBA have the balls to enact a similar punishment .....or is it only bad to be racist if you are not part of a class that has been oppressed? As the only white guy in the room/Park/Gym in a lot of cases I think racism from any source is mighty disconcerting. 

socialnewsdaily.com/37594/nba-legend-larry-johnson-calls-for-all-black-league-twitter-reacts/

 

I agree with you here, borna.  I don't buy the new definition of racism that it can only be committed by whites.  Louis Farakhan, for instance, is a huge racist, every bit as much, if not more so, than Sterling with his constant screeds against whites in general and Jews in particular.  

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 9:51 AM
the123kid wrote:expand_more
No difference between being a bigot based on race or based on sexual preference.



There is a difference. The first is illegal. The second is not. 

 

It certainly isn't illegal to be racist....Morally wrong, yes, but no illegal.  The same would be said for both...

 

It is illegal. You are not permitted to apply racial preference to any business--hiring, serving, promotion, etc. Laws against race discrimination are commonplace. 

 
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 10:07 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
No difference between being a bigot based on race or based on sexual preference.



There is a difference. The first is illegal. The second is not. 

 

It certainly isn't illegal to be racist....Morally wrong, yes, but no illegal.  The same would be said for both...

 

It is illegal. You are not permitted to apply racial preference to any business--hiring, serving, promotion, etc. Laws against race discrimination are commonplace. 

 


So are laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Just not at the federal level. One exception is that if you receive HUD funding you may not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But state and local anti-discrimination laws are extremely common place. 

Also, the State of Ohio does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation--even though private employers in Ohio may still do so. 

 



 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 10:24 AM
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 
giacomo
General User
G
Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,763
person
mail
giacomo
mail
Posted: 5/1/2014 5:34 PM
I would like to hear the entire conversation, instead of just the few sentences we were exposed to. I don't think Sterling is going to go quietly. Why haven't we heard anything like this until now? He's owned the team since 1981 and has had numerous minority employees. He has had some lawsuits in his real estate business for discrimination. I'd like to hear his side of the story and I'd like to know what right to privacy the average person has when speaking to someone. How many people could stand up to such scrutiny in their private conversations?
Last Edited: 5/1/2014 5:53:14 PM by giacomo
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 10:14 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 

That is simply not factually accurate. There are state level laws protecting lgbt people against employment discrimination that apply to ALL employment in the following states/territories:
 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. 

That represents over 43% of the population of the U.S. When you throw in local laws against employment discrimination in cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Philadelphia, and yes-- Athens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, these laws apply to a majority of the population EASILY. 
 

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 10:39 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 

That is simply not factually accurate. There are state level laws protecting lgbt people against employment discrimination that apply to ALL employment in the following states/territories:
 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. 

That represents over 43% of the population of the U.S. When you throw in local laws against employment discrimination in cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Philadelphia, and yes-- Athens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, these laws apply to a majority of the population EASILY. 
  

You certainly seem up to speed on the various state employment laws, even to the degree of knowing the total population given by a particular set of states. 

So answer this: in how many states is it illegal to discriminate based upon the color of an applicant's skin?



 
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 12:35 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 

That is simply not factually accurate. There are state level laws protecting lgbt people against employment discrimination that apply to ALL employment in the following states/territories:
 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. 

That represents over 43% of the population of the U.S. When you throw in local laws against employment discrimination in cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Philadelphia, and yes-- Athens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, these laws apply to a majority of the population EASILY. 
  

You certainly seem up to speed on the various state employment laws, even to the degree of knowing the total population given by a particular set of states. 

So answer this: in how many states is it illegal to discriminate based upon the color of an applicant's skin?



 

It took me five minutes to calculate the combined populations of those states. 
 
For the second part, all of them. And you know that. So what does it have to do with anything? 

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 1:16 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 

That is simply not factually accurate. There are state level laws protecting lgbt people against employment discrimination that apply to ALL employment in the following states/territories:
 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. 

That represents over 43% of the population of the U.S. When you throw in local laws against employment discrimination in cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Philadelphia, and yes-- Athens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, these laws apply to a majority of the population EASILY. 
  

You certainly seem up to speed on the various state employment laws, even to the degree of knowing the total population given by a particular set of states. 

So answer this: in how many states is it illegal to discriminate based upon the color of an applicant's skin?



 

It took me five minutes to calculate the combined populations of those states. 
 
For the second part, all of them. And you know that. So what does it have to do with anything? 

 

It gets back to the original point. It is absolutely illegal to discriminate based upon race. Period. 

Sexual preference is far less absolute. It depends on many factors, what state, what job, and it is heavily dependent upon even knowing about one's sexual preferences.

Which is all back to the original point made by 123, that an NBA owner's alleged contribution to a "traditional marriage" PAC should have some bearing on that person's ability to retain their job as NBA owner. He portrayed that act as being "the same" as Donald Sterling's racist tirade. 

I contend it's not "the same." 

I don't know where you stand. 





 
Last Edited: 5/2/2014 1:19:55 PM by Robert Fox
bobcatsquared
General User
B
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,848
person
mail
bobcatsquared
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 1:20 PM
    Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, as he typically does, has one of the better looks at this topic:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/29/4088124/a-country-not-cured-of-racial.html

     Pitts is the best national columnist (Jonah Goldberg would be the other extreme) carried by the Dispatch. He was also a recent visiting journalism professor at Ohio University.
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 1:22 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 

That is simply not factually accurate. There are state level laws protecting lgbt people against employment discrimination that apply to ALL employment in the following states/territories:
 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. 

That represents over 43% of the population of the U.S. When you throw in local laws against employment discrimination in cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Philadelphia, and yes-- Athens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, these laws apply to a majority of the population EASILY. 
  

You certainly seem up to speed on the various state employment laws, even to the degree of knowing the total population given by a particular set of states. 

So answer this: in how many states is it illegal to discriminate based upon the color of an applicant's skin?



 

It took me five minutes to calculate the combined populations of those states. 
 
For the second part, all of them. And you know that. So what does it have to do with anything? 

 

It gets back to the original point. It is absolutely illegal to discriminate based upon race. Period. 

Sexual preference is far less absolute. It depends on many factors, what state, what job, and it is heavily dependent upon even knowing about one's sexual preferences.

Which is all back to the original point made by 123, that an NBA owner's alleged contribution to a "traditional marriage" PAC should have some bearing on that person's ability to retain their job as NBA owner.

But, you knew that. 

 

His point was made in the context of his belief that gay rights are the civil rights battle of this generation. It wasn't always illegal to discriminate based on race. So there really is no difference, except the timing, if you believe that eventually gay rights will be universal. 

Also, I made no value judgment (thought I suspect we have differing opinions on the matter). I simply said you were incorrect in your assertion that laws protecting LGBT folks against employment discrimination are "not commonplace." They certainly are. Now if you had said laws protecting LGBT folks against employment discrimination are not universal then I wouldn't have disputed you. It may seem like nitpicking, but these distinctions are important. 

Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 1:35 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
    Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, as he typically does, has one of the better looks at this topic:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/29/4088124/a-country-not-cured-of-racial.html

     Pitts is the best national columnist (Jonah Goldberg would be the other extreme) carried by the Dispatch. He was also a recent visiting journalism professor at Ohio University.

BS. That's one man's effort to neatly package all his political enemies into one tidy group. According to him, Sterling and Bundy are one in the same. And he's bigger than both. My ass. Pitts apparently believes, as does the vast majority of U.S. media, that his loud effort to denounce his enemies will somehow position himself above it all. It's pure self-righteousness. 

You like him. Great. But don't confuse your opinion with fact. 

People need desperately to stop stereotyping their political opposition. None of these people fit into a nice, easy mold. 

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 1:40 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Perhaps it is commonplace with state jobs, but not privately, which is the vast majority of work opportunities.

On a more practical side: If you, as a private business owner, refuse to hire a man because he is black, you have clearly broken the law and you can absolutely expect retribution.

If you refuse to hire a man because he is gay, the outcome is far less clear, starting with the victim's ability to PROVE his case, given that one characteristic (being black) is usually quite evident, and the other characteristic (being gay) is often completely unknown. 

 

That is simply not factually accurate. There are state level laws protecting lgbt people against employment discrimination that apply to ALL employment in the following states/territories:
 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin. 

That represents over 43% of the population of the U.S. When you throw in local laws against employment discrimination in cities like Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Louisville, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Philadelphia, and yes-- Athens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo, these laws apply to a majority of the population EASILY. 
  

You certainly seem up to speed on the various state employment laws, even to the degree of knowing the total population given by a particular set of states. 

So answer this: in how many states is it illegal to discriminate based upon the color of an applicant's skin?



 

It took me five minutes to calculate the combined populations of those states. 
 
For the second part, all of them. And you know that. So what does it have to do with anything? 

 

It gets back to the original point. It is absolutely illegal to discriminate based upon race. Period. 

Sexual preference is far less absolute. It depends on many factors, what state, what job, and it is heavily dependent upon even knowing about one's sexual preferences.

Which is all back to the original point made by 123, that an NBA owner's alleged contribution to a "traditional marriage" PAC should have some bearing on that person's ability to retain their job as NBA owner.

But, you knew that. 

 

His point was made in the context of his belief that gay rights are the civil rights battle of this generation. It wasn't always illegal to discriminate based on race. So there really is no difference, except the timing, if you believe that eventually gay rights will be universal. 

Also, I made no value judgment (thought I suspect we have differing opinions on the matter). I simply said you were incorrect in your assertion that laws protecting LGBT folks against employment discrimination are "not commonplace." They certainly are. Now if you had said laws protecting LGBT folks against employment discrimination are not universal then I wouldn't have disputed you. It may seem like nitpicking, but these distinctions are important. 


Well, to be honest, it does seem like nitpicking. Mostly because it's not the main point to begin with (whether the laws are "commonplace" or "universal.")

 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 1:50 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
    Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, as he typically does, has one of the better looks at this topic:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/29/4088124/a-country-not-cured-of-racial.html

     Pitts is the best national columnist (Jonah Goldberg would be the other extreme) carried by the Dispatch. He was also a recent visiting journalism professor at Ohio University.

I like Pitts view on most subjects and agree with a great many of his ideas. I don't much care for his general presentation.  You are obviously a fan. I read him as one of many to try to get a broader perspective. He may well be the "best" carried by the Dispatch. It does not change my mind in the least that if I were introduced to him at a function I have always had the feeling he would see my white skin and ask what I do for work and automatically assume a great many things about me. I think IMHO  he has as many or more biases than most of the (admittedly color and gender blind) guys with whom i keep company. 

I see no one wanted to comment on larry Johnson's call for an all black league. Pretty sad when we as a society accept him calling for a return to the Negro Leagues.....unless it is OK with everyone to exclude folks based on the color of their skin. 

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 1:58 PM
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more

I see no one wanted to comment on larry Johnson's call for an all black league. Pretty sad when we as a society accept him calling for a return to the Negro Leagues.....unless it is OK with everyone to exclude folks based on the color of their skin. 

 



To me, your comment was rhetorical. Maybe I misunderstood your point. I agree racism unacceptable no matter the source or the target. It's a dangerous precedent to allow racist comments to go unchallenged because of some apparent sense of retribution. 

 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:09 PM
My point was that NO ONE is outraged by Larry Johnson's comments. WHY NOT? Is it not just as racist to call for exclusion of anyone who is not black? I took exception to the mother of a player telling her boy in foront of me and my better half,  "don't y'all even think of bringing a white girl home". I do not get why racism from sources other than white folks seems to be acceptable ...or maybe there are very few of us who have the balls to call it out. Knife cuts both ways and should not be tolerated at all. 
Last Edited: 5/2/2014 2:11:00 PM by bornacatfan
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 5/2/2014 2:13 PM
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
or maybe there are very few of us who have the balls to call it out.  

There is some truth in this. It's unfortunate and unacceptable, but it seems to be part of the evolution of recovery. We, as a society, are oversteering out of the ditch.

 
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 66
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)