two statements.

1. I don't want any blacks coming to my house, i'll have to lock everything up so it doesnt get stolen

2. I don't want and fundamentalists christians coming to my house trying to "save me", listening to their bullshit.

Both statements are discriminatory, rooted in stereotypes.
Both are ignorant.
One is an acceptable thing to say.

Thanks for showing us the way bro! So enlightened!

Gblock;1611184 wrote:i thought you said come to my door not my daughter. why would you feel they have nothing in common? either with the catholics or the blacks? also i didnt realized catholics had it so bad. isnt it the most popular religion in the us?

its a common excuse. there often isn't a real reason for discrimination.

religion has always been discriminated both ways.

Automatik;1611188 wrote:Thanks for showing us the way bro! So enlightened!

i doubt that

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1611186 wrote:two statements.

1. I don't want any blacks coming to my house, i'll have to lock everything up so it doesnt get stolen

2. I don't want and fundamentalists christians coming to my house trying to "save me", listening to their bullshit.

Both statements are discriminatory, rooted in stereotypes.
Both are ignorant.
One is an acceptable thing to say.

im sorry i dont see it that way...i cant say i know what a fundamentalist christian is but i dont want to be saved by them either. u could insert any religion in there tho. either way not wanting ideas pushed on you or preached to is different from saying that black people will come to your house and steal your shit...sorry you dont see that

Gblock;1611191 wrote:im sorry i dont see it that way...i cant say i know what a fundamentalist christian is but i dont want to be saved by them either. u could insert any religion in there tho. either way not wanting ideas pushed on you or preached to is different from saying that black people will come to your house and steal your shit...sorry you dont see that

You're assuming theyre going to push their ideas on you based on stereotypes. Which you're ok with.
But its wrong to assume blacks will steal from you based on stereotypes? How does that work?

What it boils down to is this.. discriminating blacks is no worse than discriminating anything else. You've admitted you think it is. I'm not going to change your opinion on that. But only to you is Sterling worse of a person, b/c you've quantified somehow that a group is more important than another group. Which you're wrong for.

its absolutely not worse im just not sure you have named good examples of discrimination

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1611186 wrote:two statements.

1. I don't want any blacks coming to my house, i'll have to lock everything up so it doesnt get stolen

2. I don't want and fundamentalists christians coming to my house trying to "save me", listening to their bullshit.

Both statements are discriminatory, rooted in stereotypes.
Both are ignorant.
One is an acceptable thing to say.

It depends on who you are talking to as to whether either comment is acceptable.

Here is the Devil's Advocate take on this

I do not see where Sterling was per se racist. My take on it was that he did not want to be seen with a woman that was seen bangin the brothers. Hell, he even told her to fuck em. I guess he was worried about photographic evidence in stead of the tape recorded type.

That and bangin a HIV positive brother.

Go ahead, let me have it.

if you said i dont want jews, gays, catholics etc around me thats one thing. most people dont want anyone knocking on their door no matter who it is. i didnt realize the point you were making. yes i believe discrimination in any form is wrong. if sterling had said why are you taking pictures with asians, gays, or whatever i would feel the same as my take on this issue. did it touch me more being part black yes it hurts a lil more because i been thru it before.

Gblock;1611196 wrote:its absolutely not worse im just not sure you have named good examples of discrimination

I cant help you with that.

In this country there are groups that are ok trash and theres groups its not ok too. discriminating on religion or race or creed should make no difference... but some reason it does.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1611178 wrote:Of course you cant grasp it. That's been proven.
Him saying he doesnt want any blacks around isnt any worse than someone saying i dont want any bible thumpers around. But for some reason, it is worse.

Thats ridiculous.

You may not want a Bible thumper around because they are going to preach the Bible.

Not wanting a black around because they are black is just racist. They are not close to the same.

Laley23;1611201 wrote:Thats ridiculous.

You may not want a Bible thumper around because they are going to preach the Bible.

Not wanting a black around because they are black is just racist. They are not close to the same.

And you may not want a black guy around bc he might rob you. Both are excuses rooted in stereotypes. Each condition you're discriminating against that person on pre-conceived notions.

Laley23;1611201 wrote:Thats ridiculous.

You may not want a Bible thumper around because they are going to preach the Bible.

Not wanting a black around because they are black is just racist. They are not close to the same.

It's about choice. Society has more tolerance for discriminating against things that people choose: religion, political affiliation, etc. Their is less tolerance for discrimination when individuals don't have choice in the matter: race, birth defects, etc.

Zoltan;1611204 wrote:It's about choice. Society has more tolerance for discriminating against things that people choose: religion, political affiliation, etc. Their is less tolerance for discrimination when individuals don't have choice in the matter: race, birth defects, etc.

Pretty good summary. Explains why gays still can't marry because some thinks its a choice.

Zoltan;1611204 wrote:It's about choice. Society has more tolerance for discriminating against things that people choose: religion, political affiliation, etc. Their is less tolerance for discrimination when individuals don't have choice in the matter: race, birth defects, etc.

Agree with you and sleeper, that's pretty damn accurate

to get back on topic the nba is a little hypocrytical in this what with the dress code and everything. but it shows that they are going to fiercely protect their brand and keep it a mainstream product to the widest demographic possible

ts1227;1611209 wrote:Agree with you and sleeper, that's pretty damn accurate

So it's ok to discriminate against a religion bc YOU don't agree with and THEY should change because it's THEIR choice. Got it. Great rationale. Lol

either way it's just as bad.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1611211 wrote:So it's ok to discriminate against a religion bc YOU don't agree with and THEY should change because it's THEIR choice. Got it. Great rationale. Lol

either way it's just as bad.

Religion is absolutely the worst thing in the world. Not sure I can put race in the same category.

Zoltan;1611204 wrote:It's about choice. Society has more tolerance for discriminating against things that people choose: religion, political affiliation, etc. Their is less tolerance for discrimination when individuals don't have choice in the matter: race, birth defects, etc.

Yeah. Reps. All that good shit.

Apparently this Sterling matter has caused people to forget about things such as logic when making arguments. From the Deadspin column mocking all the derps and their 1st Amendment failarguments to Zwick comparing not wanting a black person around due to "they're black, so they're gonna steal my stuff!!!!!" stereotypes to not wanting Witnesses or Mormons* knocking on their doors because they don't feel like being preached to about something they don't care about (due to either not being religious or being of a more mainstream denomination).

*At least that's what I think he's talking about, as at least where I live, other religious groups have never gone door to door. If so, up where he's at, part of the "we don't want you around" might have more to do with simply being a door-to-door solicitor. I know when I'm home after a day at work, I don't particularly enjoy random people knocking on my door to disrupt my down-time. It's no prejudice against them, what they're selling or their beliefs...I just want to unwind.

Lol@ you thinking discrimination is ok bc someone chose to do something to don't agree with.

Soooooo anyway.

Apparently Oprah is throwing her hat in the ring for potentially buying the Clippers.

Zoltan;1611204 wrote:It's about choice. Society has more tolerance for discriminating against things that people choose: religion, political affiliation, etc. Their is less tolerance for discrimination when individuals don't have choice in the matter: race, birth defects, etc.

Good point.

Gblock;1611210 wrote:to get back on topic the nba is a little hypocrytical in this what with the dress code and everything. but it shows that they are going to fiercely protect their brand and keep it a mainstream product to the widest demographic possible

In this case, it was sort of a "must do" sort of thing.

They have a dress code because they want to at least pretend that every one is a professional along the lines of how a guy like MJ publicly portrayed himself whether they are a true professional or a J.R. Smith in order to generate interest from as many demographic groups as possible.

They had to go strong on Sterling because he made prejudiced comments against a race that composes nearly 80% of NBA players, as well as what I'd guess would be a large percent of fans, to a degree where showing any degree of tolerance or acceptance of those statements would potentially alienate (at least for the short term) some of those demographics.

When it comes to big business, it's all about protecting the brand and ensuring that its popularity doesn't get marred.