Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Hypocrisy? Regarding Phil Robertson and Don Sterling

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    But how is he any less protected than Phil Robertson was?

    Granted, History did suspend Robertson...and the family did say that was fine, they would take their duck calls and go home rather than buckle under. But the thing was, his remarks were public, and people were polarized over his right to make them. With Sterling, the NBA took action on remarks that were PRIVATE...how is he less protected and why aren't people fighting over his right to say what he did ESPECIALLY since he expected them to be private?
    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
      But how is he any less protected than Phil Robertson was?

      Granted, History did suspend Robertson...and the family did say that was fine, they would take their duck calls and go home rather than buckle under. But the thing was, his remarks were public, and people were polarized over his right to make them. With Sterling, the NBA took action on remarks that were PRIVATE...how is he less protected and why aren't people fighting over his right to say what he did ESPECIALLY since he expected them to be private?
      As far as I'm aware, Sterling has no religious under-pinning for his remarks. This probably makes him an easier target. I'd also feel comfortable concluding that Robertson had more supporters in the population than did Sterling.

      If you're suggesting that Robertson's supporters should also support Sterling because of the principles of free speech involved, then you've not looked closely enough at the differences between the two. Personally, I'm fine with Sterling saying whatever he wants. It is, after all, his right. But because I disagree with him, I don't feel compelled to support him in any way. Sterling was expressing racial preferences and actively discriminating against people in the process (for no apparent reason that I can see). Robertson was explaining his religious beliefs, in response to a question about those beliefs. I don't really think these two situations are similar.

      Also, isn't Duck Dynasty an A&E show (rather than the History Channel)?
      "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

      Comment


      • #18
        Dang, my bad. Yes, it was A&E.

        SHOULD Robertson's supporters range themselves behind Sterling's right to freedom of expression as well? I question the validity of penalizing Sterling based on his PRIVATE speech. Hence my perception of hypocrisy.

        EDITED to add: and would it stand up in court should Sterling sue for unconstitutional suppression and for violation of privacy?
        Last edited by DesertBerean; 04-30-2014, 03:16 PM.
        Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
          Dang, my bad. Yes, it wad A&E.

          SHOULD Robertson's supporters range themselves behind Sterling's right to freedom of expression as well? I question the validity of penalizing Sterling based on his PRIVATE speech. Hence my perception of hypocrisy.

          EDITED to add: and would it stand up in court should Sterling sue for unconstitutional suppression and for violation of privacy?
          I'd tend to regard that as a civil issue, and I'm not sure exactly how far free speech would play into that. I'm sure he could sue, and to be honest, he might have a decent case (if he was recorded without his consent and so forth). I don't know too much about civil law. I do think it's a bit underhanded to persecute him for private comments. But then, his own behavior was worse.
          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

          Comment


          • #20
            Behavior can be actionable. But not speech...at least according to the constitution.
            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
              While the two cases aren't identical, I'm thinking the freedom of expression applies. Robertson was expressing his beliefs about homosexuality based on his understanding, while Sterling was expressing his beliefs about what races his girlfriend should associate with based on HIS understanding. Both, as far as I could see, were entitled to express those views despite my agreement or disagreement with them.

              Was it fair to treat Sterling differently than Robertson because of what he said?
              It's fair to call him on it but it's not fair to punish him for it. He has as much right to be wrong as any other idiot.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by myth View Post
                As far as I'm aware, Sterling has no religious under-pinning for his remarks. This probably makes him an easier target. I'd also feel comfortable concluding that Robertson had more supporters in the population than did Sterling.

                If you're suggesting that Robertson's supporters should also support Sterling because of the principles of free speech involved, then you've not looked closely enough at the differences between the two. Personally, I'm fine with Sterling saying whatever he wants. It is, after all, his right. But because I disagree with him, I don't feel compelled to support him in any way. Sterling was expressing racial preferences and actively discriminating against people in the process (for no apparent reason that I can see). Robertson was explaining his religious beliefs, in response to a question about those beliefs. I don't really think these two situations are similar.

                Also, isn't Duck Dynasty an A&E show (rather than the History Channel)?
                Yes. Robertson was supported because what he said was not anti black, but simply uninformed. Is Sterling any wronger? He was expressing private antipathy toward blacks. Like most it seems that there has been a drastic over reaction to this, but I can not support clear anti black rhetoric. What would happen in court in this day and age is only remotely related to what is right and wrong.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Sterling would be unlikely to succeed in court because there is a clause that the commissioner can act in the best interest of the league, broadly interpreted. Given the economic pall hanging over the league, that action could reasonably thought of as the best interest of the league (as the players' union was prepared to walk out), despite the fact that the recordings were obtained through questionable means.

                  He's notoriously litigious so he'll probably still try though. If I were him, I would go ahead and sell. No free agent would sign with his team while he still owned it and this would torpedo the value of his franchise.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Sterling would be unlikely to succeed in court because there is a clause that the commissioner can act in the best interest of the league, broadly interpreted. Given the economic pall hanging over the league, that action could reasonably thought of as the best interest of the league (as the players' union was prepared to walk out), despite the fact that the recordings were obtained through questionable means.

                    He's notoriously litigious so he'll probably still try though. If I were him, I would go ahead and sell. No free agent would sign with his team while he still owned it and this would torpedo the value of his franchise.
                    Practically speaking, this is the most logical case for Sterling's position. He can let the NBA do as it pleases, and act in his own best interest by selling the team. Then he can take his case to court on the grounds of unconstitutional suppression of his freedom of expression. The only defense the NBA could mount, in my view, would be to show his BEHAVIOR harmed the team's right to dignity and freedom. I think that's very iffy especially since they knew of his reputation.
                    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                      That's sad to read. You might as well be consistent and endorse racist remarks as well, then.
                      I find racism to be morally wrong, as I find homosexuality to be morally wrong. Therefore, I oppose racism, but am not very concerned about anti-homosexual remarks.

                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      Okay, humor me, why does the NBA deserve shame for taking this stand?

                      It was pretty much a necessary business decision on their part. They were standing to lose sponsors left and right, and players were on the verge of walking out. Their shame is that they should have done it long ago based on Sterling's paying out millions for discrimination in housing.
                      As for shaming the NBA, I don't advocate shaming them for acting against racism. The man should be looked upon contemptuously for his racism. However, it should only be done to an appropriate level. The issue is being exploded way out of proportion. Furthermore, many of these same people who are exploding the issue out of proportion would idly sit by and do nothing if a black man in this guy's position said racist remarks against white people. I only advocate an appropriate level of shame for the NBA for exploding an issue out of proportion, especially an issue where many people today will then use to further hypocritical racism against white people (whilst they preach no racism and peace with other races). That, and I'm more than certain that some of the NBA people exploding the issue are amongst those same hypocrites.

                      I'll grant, though, that I spoke hastily and came off a lot nastier than I should have.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
                        I find racism to be morally wrong, as I find homosexuality to be morally wrong. Therefore, I oppose racism, but am not very concerned about anti-homosexual remarks.
                        An attitude that would put you in precisely the same territory as Fred Phelps. We've explored this territory before.

                        As for shaming the NBA, I don't advocate shaming them for acting against racism. The man should be looked upon contemptuously for his racism. However, it should only be done to an appropriate level. The issue is being exploded way out of proportion. Furthermore, many of these same people who are exploding the issue out of proportion would idly sit by and do nothing if a black man in this guy's position said racist remarks against white people. I only advocate an appropriate level of shame for the NBA for exploding an issue out of proportion, especially an issue where many people today will then use to further hypocritical racism against white people (whilst they preach no racism and peace with other races). That, and I'm more than certain that some of the NBA people exploding the issue are amongst those same hypocrites.

                        I'll grant, though, that I spoke hastily and came off a lot nastier than I should have.
                        Not nearly nasty enough, try "this entire brouhaha is just about two California Jews fighting over who can genuflect harder to which group of degenerate black thugs while making whitey grovel in the process. As a result of this ugly racist spectacle, I resolve to stop watching or playing basketball."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          All racism is ugly. Racists have a blind spot, however, when it comes to themselves and their kin.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Here's an interesting perspective:

                            Source: Larry Elder

                            Can black and white victicrats take a day off from being "offended"? Dolts -- whether Bundy or Sterling -- who are incapable of harm, say stupid things. The real issues -- under-education, lack of jobs and irresponsible breeding and parenting -- have nothing to do with Sterling's jealousy and will not be resolved by his public flaying.

                            Wave a magic wand. Remove racism from the hearts of the Bundys, Sterlings and Zimmermans. The effect on these problems is what? But no, let's talk "income disparity" or "climate change" or that "racism remains alive and well in America."

                            Let's talk Sterling.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Here's an interesting perspective:

                              Source: Larry Elder

                              Can black and white victicrats take a day off from being "offended"? Dolts -- whether Bundy or Sterling -- who are incapable of harm, say stupid things. The real issues -- under-education, lack of jobs and irresponsible breeding and parenting -- have nothing to do with Sterling's jealousy and will not be resolved by his public flaying.

                              Wave a magic wand. Remove racism from the hearts of the Bundys, Sterlings and Zimmermans. The effect on these problems is what? But no, let's talk "income disparity" or "climate change" or that "racism remains alive and well in America."

                              Let's talk Sterling.

                              © Copyright Original Source


                              Yep. It's called 'avoidance'.
                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                Here's an interesting perspective:

                                Source: Larry Elder

                                Can black and white victicrats take a day off from being "offended"? Dolts -- whether Bundy or Sterling -- who are incapable of harm, say stupid things. The real issues -- under-education, lack of jobs and irresponsible breeding and parenting -- have nothing to do with Sterling's jealousy and will not be resolved by his public flaying.

                                Wave a magic wand. Remove racism from the hearts of the Bundys, Sterlings and Zimmermans. The effect on these problems is what? But no, let's talk "income disparity" or "climate change" or that "racism remains alive and well in America."

                                Let's talk Sterling.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                What does George Zimmerman have to do with Cliven Bundy, Donald Sterling, or the price of tea in China?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-20-2023, 07:30 AM
                                26 responses
                                117 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Machinist, 03-20-2023, 06:32 AM
                                80 responses
                                458 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Ronson, 03-17-2023, 01:35 PM
                                78 responses
                                355 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-15-2023, 07:25 AM
                                17 responses
                                177 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by eider, 03-15-2023, 05:45 AM
                                17 responses
                                98 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X