Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:

Wasn't there an issue recently (within the last two years) with an athlete wearing another team's hat, or maybe it was another sports team's hat? They get annoyed at that stuff as well.

Durant has been known to wear a SuperSonics hat on occasion. But I don't think that pissed off anybody except Seattle.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.

I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.

It's no different than the NFL forcing coaches to wear team apparel instead of something more professional like a business suit as in other sports (NBA, NHL, etc.).

It is, though. Team colours are completely appropriate for members of a team. Branded items from a rival company are a different thing entirely.

Presumably there is a swinging penalty clause in Nike's sponsorship contract with the league. I assume that as a quarterback the player gets enough that $10,000 is the least you need to fine him to actually hurt him. (Note that he didn't learn a lesson from the first occasion.)

This has all reminded me of this Seinfeld bit:

Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. You’re actually rooting for the clothes. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt!

Ron Burgundy got it right in Anchorman 2

"As GNN launches, Ron decides to broadcast what the people want to hear, rather than what they need to hear, and devise a sensationalist and attention grabbing newscast"

 Polonius wrote:


Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think most people find overt, superficial racism unseemly. Not wanting your girlfriend taking pictures with black guys is both racially discriminatory, it's also petty and without gain. People see this, and go, "there's a guy that just plain don't like black folk."

Something that isn't being asked right now, and perhaps should be, is why he cares about it IN PUBLIC when he clearly doesn't have a problem associating with minorities in private. To me, it's perhaps indicative of his concern over what his peer group will think (which, prior to his death, including Jerry Buss as a close friend). Which means there are (perhaps unsurprisingly) other owners that share his views but are better at discretion. I think that should b a very real concern.

Housing discrimination, on the other hand... well, people love it. Not all people, and certainly not those discriminated against, but for the most part, people like that the can, or wish that they could, limit what types of people lived in certain areas. Ethnic enclaves, gritty blue collar neighborhoods fighting against gentrification, and good old fashioned Red Lining all exist because while we're racially open minded in theory, we all are keeping an eye on our property values.

It's also a reason why forced mixed income housing isn't that common.

 Ahtman wrote:
This has all reminded me of this Seinfeld bit:

Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. You’re actually rooting for the clothes. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt!

Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.

OT: I'm glad they finally nailed this racist piece of gak. If he had told his girlfriend, "Make sure you bring your 10 year old sister, she's fethable as feth", no one would be worried about the implications of private chat made public.

Pedophelia is illegal. Being a racist isn't.

It's still wrong.

 cincydooley wrote:
Pedophelia is illegal. Being a racist isn't.

That is probably why he wasn't arrested for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.

When Peyton Manning went to Denver I know a lot of people that turned on him and I didn't really get it. I liked him before and I still like him now. He is a very dynamic player at both organizations.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's still wrong.

While I agree, that's not an objective fact.

Maybe it's just me, But I don't see pedophiles and racists on the same level.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's still wrong.

Are you suggesting it should be a crime? Should there be arrests, fines, and prison time for racism?

 Breotan wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's still wrong.

Are you suggesting it should be a crime? Should there be arrests, fines, and prison time for racism?

No, I never said that. There is absolutely nothing in my words to indicate that.

feeder wrote:
Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.

Would you say you find racist statements more objectionable than breaking someone's neck over a game, then?

 Seaward wrote:

feeder wrote:
Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.

Would you say you find racist statements more objectionable than breaking someone's neck over a game, then?

I find deliberately racist statements more objectionable than accidentally breaking someone's neck, yes. No more tragic or regrettable, but objectionable, yes. Intent is key here, I think.

 Ahtman wrote:

feeder wrote:
Yeah, people who go crazy for "their" team are a little bit nuts. I mean I root for and follow the Canucks, but as soon as the discussion turns to "my team" and "your guys" I tune right out. I love Bertuzzi, but when he went to the Red Wings I have to hate him? I don't get it. 95% of the time the player doesn't really have a choice AFAIK.

When Peyton Manning went to Denver I know a lot of people that turned on him and I didn't really get it. I liked him before and I still like him now. He is a very dynamic player at both organizations.

I don't really understand this much either... I mean, if one of the Sedin twins were to be traded to Toronto, I'd be mad as hell.... At the GM and "Front Office", but would never boo the player. I mean, in Peyton's case, it was the front office who said, "well, we have andrew luck, who we feel will get us to a superbowl sooner than if we keep you around, so pack your bags. Thanks for what you did for us."

At the same time, when players do something like Lebron James did when he went to Miami, I completely understand and feel the booing/hate directed at him at the time was justifiable. There's a certain measure of professionalism that I think players should have. Turning a change in teams into a reality show/ media spectacle is extremely unprofessional.

feeder wrote:
I find deliberately racist statements more objectionable than accidentally breaking someone's neck, yes. No more tragic or regrettable, but objectionable, yes. Intent is key here, I think.

Wow. Seriously, man. Wow.

In one case all you have are words and possibly hurt feelings. In more serious cases you have civil courts to provide relief. In the other, a person has died. The survivors and family have to deal with that forever. You claim intent, instead is key instead of actual damage.

I must fervently disagree with your outlook on this issue and likely your fundamental values system, too. In my book, life is always more important than anyone's feelings. Intent is fine for determining motive but Canada seems to have crossed the line and wandered deep into thought police territory. I am always stunned and amazed to find people who can't understand (or don't care) why that is so dangerous.

Voltaire wrote:I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.

Seriously, Canada, What the hell's happening up there?

 cincydooley wrote:
Pedophelia is illegal. Being a racist isn't.

Just "being" a pedophile isn't a crime, anymore than being a racist is. One has to act on those disturbed thoughts in order to commit a crime. I'd like to live in a society where belief in racial superiority/inferiority is as abhorrent as the belief that little children are ready for sex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

feeder wrote:
I find deliberately racist statements more objectionable than accidentally breaking someone's neck, yes. No more tragic or regrettable, but objectionable, yes. Intent is key here, I think.

Wow. Seriously, man. Wow.

In one case all you have are words and possibly hurt feelings. In more serious cases you have civil courts to provide relief. In the other, a person has died. The survivors and family have to deal with that forever. You claim intent, instead is key instead of actual damage.

I must fervently disagree with your outlook on this issue and likely your fundamental values system, too. In my book, life is always more important than anyone's feelings. Intent is fine for determining motive but Canada seems to have crossed the line and wandered deep into thought police territory. I am always stunned and amazed to find people who can't understand (or don't care) why that is so dangerous.

I think you misunderstand me. Bertuzzi didn't go out there intending to paralyze Moore, he was trying to get him to fight because he cheap-shotted Bertuzzi's captain. The end result was a terrible, awful mess, but it was an accident. Just like McSorley and Brashear. An accident is an unintended outcome of actions.

This racist old piece of gak told his girlfriend not to bring black people not by accident, because he is a horrible human being. He chooses to be one every time he wakes up and puts on his socks. That's what I find objectionable. He chooses to be intolerant.

I am not saying breaking necks is preferable to saying racist gak. I am saying I find people who choose to be horrible people more objectionable than people who are involved in terrible accidents.

 d-usa wrote:
The NBA likes to send their minorities to training camps.

You know who else had camps?

Clowns.

Clowns have schools, and shoes, and cars. Not camps AFAIK.

Saw this today and thought I'd leave it here to stir up the discussion a little bit.

Seems legit. Kick 'em both.

42 was a pretty good movie

 Breotan wrote:
Saw this today and thought I'd leave it here to stir up the discussion a little bit.

I was checking for news about this, but any stories I found about it were mostly about Sterling with maybe 3 sentences about the call for an all Black league.

That is because no one took him all that seriously, though it did make the news as we have heard the story. It just isn't an interesting story, and not even on the same level of moronic. It was stupid, but not modern day plantation owner stupid. Trying to create some false equivalence shows a serious misunderstanding of history and society.

 Ahtman wrote:
That is because no one took him all that seriously, though it did make the news as we have heard the story. It just isn't an interesting story, and not even on the same level of moronic. It was stupid, but not modern day plantation owner stupid. Trying to create some false equivalence shows a serious misunderstanding of history and society.

Yep. I mean, I'd have no problem if they kicked the idiot who called for a black only league as well, but it isn't hard to figure out why one issue is hit harder - there is an actual, still completely real problem with some people, particularly older and often quite rich people, who do not want to associate with black people. There is not an actual, real issue with black only basketball leagues popping up around the country.

So...the president of the LA NAACP resigned due to "intense scrutiny for honoring donald sterling".

Interesting.

Here is the story.

 Ahtman wrote:
That is because no one took him all that seriously, though it did make the news as we have heard the story. It just isn't an interesting story, and not even on the same level of moronic. It was stupid, but not modern day plantation owner stupid. Trying to create some false equivalence shows a serious misunderstanding of history and society.

Moreover, Larry Johnson is not an owner and has no real power within the Knicks organization, let alone the NBA.

Also that meme is disingenuous, Johnson made his comment via Twitter, not on TV.

And he didn't call for an all black league. He called for a league of their own, which is, I think, an important distinction. And one that gets to the heart of the matter: you have mostly black workers (albeit highly paid ones) working for nearly all white owners.

Riche people complaining about rich people. Meh who cares.

 Polonius wrote:
And he didn't call for an all black league. He called for a league of their own, which is, I think, an important distinction. And one that gets to the heart of the matter: you have mostly black workers (albeit highly paid ones) working for nearly all white owners.

Well, I'd be fine if the Clippers renamed themselves the Peaches.

I'm....uncomfortable with how much the plantation analogy is being played up here, because I don't entirely understand how it's THAT different than they NFL, a league that although 80% of the players aren't black, close to 70% are.... Source

What's the big distinction? Is the difference that in the NFL, despite the numbers being not that dissimilar, about half of the stars are actually white?

I personally think the jump to do the, "oh, well she said...." Game is a bit silly and misses some of the overall pictures. Do I think Larry Johnson is racist? Probably? Should he, as an NBA Lower level executive face some consequences? Probably. Should thy look anything like Sterlings? Absolutely not.

Finally, I think all the "there are no black owners argument" that is being screamed from the hilltops is foolish because it fails to accept that there simply aren't that many blacks in the US, let alone the world, that qualify financially to own any professional sports team. There simply aren't enough black billionaires.... If Oprah genuinely wanted to buy a team outright, I think she's be welcomed because she ticks two boxes. But she's about it in the US. And yes, I know everyone likes to tout that Magic Johnson is an owner of the dodgers. But let's be honest with ourselves here: he owns about 2.5% of the team (he contributed $50MM to the $2.15B the Dodgers were purchased for). That's no small chunk of change, but it's sort of a notable thing. Shaq owns, according to forbes, a similarly sized share in the Kings.

I don't say this because I don't want diversity in ownership; rather, I think the community needs to be a bit pragmatic in how it addresses ownerships....