My sure-to-be-unpopular opinion/rant...

[HRAAB]

 

I certainly believe that my words can offend as much as anyone else's. My OP though is that society has reached a point where anyone's opinion about anything that doesn't line up with theirs is cause for whining, lawsuits, and just generally persecuting the opposition. That was really all it was about. 

 

Okay, I probably agree with most of what you wrote here in a personal environment.  For example, my next door neighbor supports a candidate I detest and holds some political views that I find repugnant (this is true by the way).  Whining about him is silly (but sometimes it feels good - dh gets an earful - rather like your OP).  I certainly have no right to persecute him although I don't even see how I would have the power to do so.  There's no basis for me to file a lawsuit against someone who holds a different opinion regardless of how detestable I find it.  

 

However, in business and government, I think there is a time and place to state your opinion, and that if you do say/write something, you need to be ready to face the consequences and own up to it.  I think this is especially true if you are in a position of authority or a well know face.  Such a person has the ability to harm the business, and the business has a right to respond to negative publicity to preserve their reputation.  That action could very well result in the person losing their job.  Still, I think it's a huge stretch to call it persecution and lessens the meaning of the word.  I don't agree with frivolous lawsuits, but if there is evidence that a right has been denied, then that would seem to be the proper course of action.

[Joanne]

 

Thomas Jefferson would never have been allowed to write the Declaration of Independence under these rules.  Nor would Abraham Lincoln have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation.  Pretty much nobody would have been able to write or do anything of value because everyone has expressed some politically incorrect thought at some time or other.

 

 

That is an epic logical fallacy (or two)!

[StaceyinLA]

I am curious about how you see this playing out. From what I understand from your posts, you feel that the baker did not make the right decision, but it should be her right to choose either way, without fearing a lawsuit because of breaking the public accommodations laws.

 

Do you feel this way for all of the categories typically in a public accommodations law (race, male/female, disability, religion, etc?) or just sexual orientation? Should it be illegal for a business owner to refuse to serve someone because they are black, or Asian, or white? Should it be illegal for a business owner to refuse service to Muslims, or to Christians, or to Jews? Or should we eliminate these laws and let business owners make their own decisions (and suffer any fallout from any resulting boycotts, etc.)?

 

Or should we keep the public accommodations laws but allow business owners to opt out if they want to refuse service based on a religious belief? (Whether it be a belief against homosexuality, or inter-racial marriage, or a specific nationality.)

 

It's an interesting issue, and I'd like to hear more from your perspective, as it seems to be a key part of the frustrations expressed in your OP.

Actually, I appreciate your point here. I guess I would have to say that if it's the law not to discriminate, and the baker agreed to follow the law, they are within their rights to sue for discrimination. Possibly some religious organizations should be exempt from things that are deemed moral issues, but I guess that would have to be decided upon, and I don't know who would make that call.

[Jane in NC]

But if she were a business owner, the relative worldwide popularity of her opinion (which is way over 50%, by the way) would be no protection whatsoever if the right people ganged up in the right way against her business interests.

 

So basically you can have any opinion you want, but you'd better censor it but good if you participate in the US economy.  Or have pretty much any aspirations whatsoever.

 

Thomas Jefferson would never have been allowed to write the Declaration of Independence under these rules.  Nor would Abraham Lincoln have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation.  Pretty much nobody would have been able to write or do anything of value because everyone has expressed some politically incorrect thought at some time or other.

 

 

Boy, I am getting more confused by the moment.  You are stating that a constitutionally valid document (the Emancipation Proclamation) could not have been written given our current mindset because of the opinions of certain white slave owners?

 

Business owners whom I know are usually in the business of making money.  They try to be pretty inclusive for that reason.  The corporation (Fortune 500) for which my husband works recognized unmarried partners because it was something that employees wanted.  Stockholders will make more money with honey than vinegar--and maintaining highly qualified staff is better for the bottom line.  It really has nothing to do with a perceived notion of political correctness.

 

 

 

[StaceyinLA]

Ignorant? What does that word mean to you?

 

He wanted his *half black girlfriend* to stop hanging out with *black people* in public because he found it personally embarrassing. He said it *to her*. If she finds it offensive enough to tell the world his private beliefs, she can do that. If the public finds it offensive enough to push back, then the public can push back. That's how free speech works. We ALL have free speech. Free speech IN NO WAY means you can say whatever you please without fear of facing repercussions.

Ignorant, as in having no knowledge of the correct thing to say. I'm not denying it was awful. Frankly, if she had told everyone what he said that would be one thing, but she did, in fact, illegally record the man.

 

I think he is a pretty low-life human being for more reasons than one. I am not defending what he said.

[AlmiraGulch]

Didn't say this at all, and certainly don't think that. In the racist issue, I strictly meant that someone who makes a racist comment in what should be in the privacy of their own home, really shouldn't get the entire country in an uproar. I could understand if it was violent or threatening, but just ignorance?

 

But in many of these cases, these opinions ARE threatening.  

 

When you are in a position of authority and influence and power (like Deen and Sterling, for example), and you make statements like these, you are threatening the very livelihood of the people who work for you.  How could they ever speak up against you when you hold their careers, paychecks, and livelihoods in their hands?

[HRAAB]

 

Thomas Jefferson would never have been allowed to write the Declaration of Independence under these rules.  Nor would Abraham Lincoln have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation.  Pretty much nobody would have been able to write or do anything of value because everyone has expressed some politically incorrect thought at some time or other.

 

 

What?  Are you saying that if Lincoln were alive today, he would not be able to write that slavery was wrong?  That it was easier for Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 than it would be today?  I hope I'm missing your point.

[TeacherZee]

Ignorant, as in having no knowledge of the correct thing to say. I'm not denying it was awful. Frankly, if she had told everyone what he said that would be one thing, but she did, in fact, illegally record the man.

I think he is a pretty low-life human being for more reasons than one. I am not defending what he said.

Someone with more knowledge of the US legal system correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in.

 

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

[StaceyinLA]

I find this claim impossible to accept when I see Fox News is still on the air. I see Bryan Fischer still on the air. I see Pat Robertson publicly claim the gays in San Francisco have rings that cut you and spread the AIDS when you shake hands. I don't see the lawsuits. I don't see the persecution from the progressive liberals. I have to conclude this is just a lamentation about losing special privileges that you grew up with and are accustomed to enjoying. The thing is, these special privileges are no longer acceptable because people are increasingly unwilling to allow themselves to submit to, and internalize, conventional standards that reduce their rights to participate fully as citizens of the United States. Whether these reductions have been protected by law or tradition, they're being challenged, as many injustices have been challenged in the past, and will be challenged in the future.

 

I wonder if I'm the only one who sees irony in expressing the idea of feeling suppressed and bullied into some out of the way corner of the public sphere with the sentiments in the OP, "People are cruel. It was just life, and I dealt with it. I guess I just do not understand why people these days can't do the same." If I understand the you correctly, you are suggesting others are being cruel by whining, bringing lawsuits, and generally persecuting you and people like you. Interestingly, the solution suggested in your OP was "deal with it" and stop whining. It seems ironic to me that it does not then apply here in this example.

Oh wow - Fox News, as opposed the the tons of other liberal "news" stations. That's a great comparison.

 

I really don't know what special privileges you're referring to, but I couldn't agree less. I don't feel sorry for myself or expect any apologies for my life or things that happened to me in my past. I harbor no ill will towards anyone. And I do think, in many instances, people could just stop whining and move on. Everything is not a hill to die on.

[Χά�ων]

I have some trouble with the stance that kids are cruel, people are cruel, and that we need to live with it. 

 

The OP may disagree but I believe that some kids are ignorant and that some people are ignorant.  I'm glad that there have been some of the anti-bullying educational projects out there.  Within my extended family there are people who made "jokes" about certain sorts of people only to find that those kind of people now show up at the holiday parties.  You never know.

 

I believe in the power of love and education.  I'll let someone else keep the cruelty.

 

:hurray:  This.

I believe Nestle harmed mothers, maternal/infant bonding and killed babies. I would have supported a lawsuit and shutting down the business.

:iagree:  and I think men who are able and willing should breastfeed without fear of social repercussions. 

 

Children, by definition are immature and can tend towards behavior that requires support, information, coaching, and guiding.

 

But, children are not evil. They just have not had the life experience to navigate all social situations with grace and compassion.

 

I was expressing my opinion.  Surely you can appreciate that.

:hurray:

[Mrs Mungo]

Ignorant, as in having no knowledge of the correct thing to say. I'm not denying it was awful. Frankly, if she had told everyone what he said that would be one thing, but she did, in fact, illegally record the man.

You think it is possible that he believed that this is a normal, average thought?:

 

"In your lousy f**ing Instagrams, you don't have to have yourself with -- walking with black people," the man says.

"If it's white people, it's OK?" she responds. "If it was Larry Bird, would it make a difference?"

Bird was Johnson's chief rival when Bird's Celtics and Johnson's Lakers ruled the NBA.

"I've known (Magic Johnson) well, and he should be admired. ... I'm just saying that it's too bad you can't admire him privately," the man on the recording says. "Admire him, bring him here, feed him, f**k him, but don't put (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."

If so, why wouldn't he say it in public? He didn't say it in public because he DOES know better.

[StaceyinLA]

Someone with more knowledge of the US legal system correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in.

 

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

In CA it is against the law to do it without the other person's knowledge. At least that's what I have gathered from several different articles.

[StaceyinLA]

You think it is possible that he believed that this is a normal, average thought?:

 

If so, why wouldn't he say it in public? He didn't say it in public because he DOES know better.

Again, the comments are appalling and disgusting. I do NOT support this man or what he has done.

[idnib]

In CA it is against the law to do it without the other person's knowledge. At least that's what I have gathered from several different articles.

 

Yes, this is true in CA. He could pursue legal action but I doubt he will as it will make him look worse. Has anyone confirmed in which state the recording was made?

[StaceyinLA]

But in many of these cases, these opinions ARE threatening.

 

When you are in a position of authority and influence and power (like Deen and Sterling, for example), and you make statements like these, you are threatening the very livelihood of the people who work for you. How could they ever speak up against you when you hold their careers, paychecks, and livelihoods in their hands?

I agree with that to an extent. Paula Deen's comments were from years before, and as I recall, she had black employees who had very good things to say about her. She had not mistreated anyone. Her comments were in poor taste for sure, but I think she had probably repaid with her actions over the years (and I'm not particularly a fan of hers).

 

Sterling deserves what he gets for sure; I just think it was crappy how they obtained the information.

[Mrs Mungo]

Again, the comments are appalling and disgusting. I do NOT support this man or what he has done.

But, complaining about it, talking about it, disciplining him, those things are just whining? People should just put up with racist behavior, isn't that what you were saying in your OP?

[mamaraby]

Someone with more knowledge of the US legal system correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in.

 

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

If they were in a one party state (which is a majority of states), then yes you can record a conversation without informing the other party provided you (the person doing the recording) are a party to the conversation.

[WishboneDawn]

Didn't say this at all, and certainly don't think that. In the racist issue, I strictly meant that someone who makes a racist comment in what should be in the privacy of their own home, really shouldn't get the entire country in an uproar. I could understand if it was violent or threatening, but just ignorance?

It's not "just" ignorance.

 

It's what a powerful man, who is in the position to discriminate and deny things to people who's color he doesn't like, honestly thinks.

 

It's what a powerful man who makes money from black players and fans thinks.

 

It's what a powerful man who, in part, represents a team, a city and a sort thinks.

 

Because of who he is he has no excuse for thinking as he does and the power to make a LOT of people suffer because of his ignorance. How this came to light may be illegal and unfortunate but the fact is that it did come to light and the outrage is warranted.

 

It was outright hate, not ignorance and there's no diminishing it with the modifier "just" because his hate has very likely victimized a lot of people.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with that to an extent. Paula Deen's comments were from years before, and as I recall, she had black employees who had very good things to say about her. She had not mistreated anyone. Her comments were in poor taste for sure, but I think she had probably repaid with her actions over the years (and I'm not particularly a fan of hers).

She most certainly HAD mistreated people. She also ignored mistreatment of staff members by her brother. Did you not follow that story at all?

 

 

Sterling deserves what he gets for sure; I just think it was crappy how they obtained the information.

By recording what he actually said? Sorry, I don't get your point. You feel sorry for a bigot because the poor thing was caught on tape?

[SKL]

Are you saying that Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation because he lived in a more tolerant time when people were better able to hold unpopular opinions? That is one of the most hilarious claims I have ever seen on this board, and that is saying something.

 

Since several people failed to understand my point about Jefferson and Lincoln, I will clarify. 

 

Both of them had expressed opinions and/or acted in ways that would have gotten them shut down under the current rule that "you are entitled to your opinion but you'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences of expressing it, i.e., being shut down, economically and politically ruined."

 

For example, Lincoln had earlier spoken out in support of the right to own slaves.  Jefferson was a slave owner, although he claimed to not like slavery.

 

These and every great person held views that were arguably not correct, not kind, and not entirely popular even in the time they held them.  There were MANY loud voices against slavery even at the time the US declared independence.  Yet these people were not destroyed, they were able to go on to do great things and are now considered part of the reason the tide turned in favor of outright abolition of slavery.

 

People who believe in severely punishing the expression of certain opinions must believe that anyone who disagrees with them must have no potential for good.  That is not a very intelligent view.  If this trend grows, it will hurt our country.

[StaceyinLA]

But, complaining about it, talking about it, disciplining him, those things are just whining? People should just put up with racist behavior, isn't that what you were saying in your OP?

She most certainly HAD mistreated people. She also ignored mistreatment of staff members by her brother. Did you not follow that story at all?By recording what he actually said? Sorry, I don't get your point. You feel sorry for a bigot because the poor thing was caught on tape?

No, it is not what I was saying. What I said was I doubt we will ever make it all go away. I feel no sorrow for the man, but if this were a murder trial and the confession was illegally obtained, a da** murderer would WALK FREE. I think the man is a despicable human being, but that doesn't negate the fact that the girl illegally recorded him to blackmail him. Do I care if he never earns another penny? No. Do I think he deserves special treatment? Absolutely not. I just think, in many other situations, this information would've been considered, "illegally obtained."

 

 

As far as Paula Deen, I didn't realize about the mistreatment. I apologize for not having been more knowledgeable about it before posting or defending her. I certainly have no motive to support her; have never watched her show in my life.

[WishboneDawn]

 

No, it is not what I was saying. What I said was I doubt we will ever make it all go away. I feel no sorrow for the man, but if this were a murder trial and the confession was illegally obtained, a da** murderer would WALK FREE. I think the man is a despicable human being, but that doesn't negate the fact that the girl illegally recorded him to blackmail him. Do I care if he never earns another penny? No. Do I think he deserves special treatment? Absolutely not. I just think, in many other situations, this information would've been considered, "illegally obtained."

Then hopefully there will be legal consequences for the woman. It doesn't make a wash of the situation though. It doesn't diminish what he said. It doesn't somehow balance things out so that he gets away without consequences himself.

[elegantlion]

Ignorant? What does that word mean to you?

 

He wanted his *half black girlfriend* to stop hanging out with *black people* in public because he found it personally embarrassing. He said it *to her*. If she finds it offensive enough to tell the world his private beliefs, she can do that. If the public finds it offensive enough to push back, then the public can push back. That's how free speech works. We ALL have free speech. Free speech IN NO WAY means you can say whatever you please without fear of facing repercussions.

 

My experience having lived in south LA (state) for a while, is that openly racist/ethnic slurs/classism comments in public will not automatically get shot down or defended. I had a number of them said to my face without the person knowing my beliefs. Exdh dealt with those issues numerous times in his line of work. I'm sure that's not simply endemic to South LA. Perhaps the OP sees that as people simply stating their opinion. Moving into that environment for a short period, I saw it as hateful and bigoted because many of those people stating those opinions held power over the category they were demeaning. And that folks, is my opinion. 

[TeacherZee]

Then hopefully there will be legal consequences for the woman. It doesn't make a wash of the situation though. It doesn't diminish what he said. It doesn't somehow balance things out so that he gets away without consequences himself.

Two wrongs don't make a right

[StaceyinLA]

Then hopefully there will be legal consequences for the woman. It doesn't make a wash of the situation though. It doesn't diminish what he said. It doesn't somehow balance things out so that he gets away without consequences himself.

I agree.

[justasque]

Actually, I appreciate your point here. I guess I would have to say that if it's the law not to discriminate, and the baker agreed to follow the law, they are within their rights to sue for discrimination. Possibly some religious organizations should be exempt from things that are deemed moral issues, but I guess that would have to be decided upon, and I don't know who would make that call.

It's my understanding that these public accommodations laws don't apply to religious institutions and private clubs. So, for example, a church canlegally ban gay members, or black people, or Mexicans. A private country club can legally ban Jews, or women, or people who aren't WASPs. Scouting organizations can legally ban gay kids or non-Christian kids or kids of one sex or the other. The courts have had several of these issues come up over the years, and that's where they have made the call. It's a balance, and cases right in the middle of a balance are always fuzzy/tricky, but I think they are doing a decent job overall of deciding.

 

As an aside, I thought some folks might like to read up on the Negro Motorist Green Book.  It's a guide, published from 1936-1966, by Mr. Victor H. Green, listing safe places that black folks might patronize on their travels, before there were public accommodations laws.  It includes gas stations, restaurants, hotels, beauty parlors, and more.  Imagine you are taking a trip back then.  Take a look at the book, and see what is listed in the areas you may have visited.  We've come a long way.  

[zoobie]

I agree with that to an extent. Paula Deen's comments were from years before, and as I recall, she had black employees who had very good things to say about her. She had not mistreated anyone. Her comments were in poor taste for sure, but I think she had probably repaid with her actions over the years (and I'm not particularly a fan of hers).

 

Sterling deserves what he gets for sure; I just think it was crappy how they obtained the information.

I don't believe that's accurate re: Paula Deen. She admitted to using the n-word years ago after being robbed at gunpoint by a black male (if it is to be believed that it was the only incident; curious that she picked a time where she was the victim to admit the transgression). There were recent very questionable actions and behavior that indicated a pattern of discriminatory behavior, including her wanting black servers in white tuxedos to recreate a "plantation-style" setting for the wedding, not promoting or hiring black people to/for front-of-the-house positions, requiring black people to use a different restroom and entrance...

 

Now the lawsuit itself was insane. The woman who sued was white and claimed to be hurt from watching the restaurant discriminate against black people. I think she was sexually harassed directly by Bubba, but the stuff against Paula was purely put in there for exposure's sake and not because it had value as a legal claim.

 

I do agree to an extent that it sucks (on some level) for his girlfriend to have ratted him out. She was fine going along with it while the gravy train lasted. Rich/famous/powerful people cannot trust ANYONE, and that must be difficult.

[Desert Strawberry]

I think Stacey' s original point was that people who choose to engage in debate over controversial topics need to pull up their big boy/girl panties and neither resort to personal attacks nor take opposing statements personally. 

Stacey, is this fairly close?

 

EtA: I also understand that she was not referencing this board so much as other venues, possibly Facebook.

[albeto.]

Oh wow - Fox News, as opposed the the tons of other liberal "news" stations. That's a great comparison.

 

I'm not comparing news sources, I'm providing examples of the kind of targets that are clearly not being demoralized and belittled and reduced to objects of ridicule, whining, lawsuits, and general persecution. If your claim was accurate, where is the evidence? What examples can you show us? Why do organizations like Fox News, radio personalities like Bryan Fischer, and religious leaders like Pat Robertson continue to offer the kind of opinion you are saying gets shut down? They don't just offer it, they offer it on a global scale, to the tune of millions of viewers. Your argument makes no sense because it contains no facts. Well, so far I've not seen facts, just opinion.

 

I really don't know what special privileges you're referring to, but I couldn't agree less. I don't feel sorry for myself or expect any apologies for my life or things that happened to me in my past. I harbor no ill will towards anyone. And I do think, in many instances, people could just stop whining and move on. Everything is not a hill to die on.

 

I agree with you that in many instances people could, and should, stop whining and move on. This sort of begs the question, why don't you just move on, but I think your argument is worth attention. I think your appeal is genuine, and I can respect that. Your beliefs are held by many, but they're based on faulty logic, misinformation, and emotional appeals, and I wonder if you can see that. As far as the privilege I'm talking about, I'm referring to the privilege of saying offensive things without public backlash.

 

Fifty years ago, from his jail cell in Birmingham, Dr. MLK Jr wrote, "I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in non-violent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with."

 

We see marches today (Pride Parades, for example) that do this very thing - they expose the tension that is already there, bringing to the surface what exists, exposing it out in the open, forcing us as a society to recognize it, and confront it. The privilege is in not having to deal with it. The privilege is in blissful ignorance of the tension that exists to entire groups of people to the extent you may not be aware. You may think these things don't affect you personally, after all, you're not actively shouting down gay couples as they walk into a church on their wedding day. But they do affect you in that they affect your community, your society, your nation as a whole. Within the next generation or two Christians will likely be the minority in this nation, and I'm quite sure they will be grateful to utilize these time-honored practices of calling out injustice.

 

Right now many people are still privileged enough to form an opinion and believe it without having to deal with the facts that challenge it. They can surround themselves with like-minded people and safely assume if they said or did something against a marginalized group, they'd be quickly justified or at least forgiven. But part of protecting a free society is exposing those marginalized groups, bringing to light the hidden tension that exists with or without their knowledge. You don't have to know about these things, but gone are the days where ignorance is an excuse to continue marginalizing people. Gone are the days where one's opinions will be respected and protected simply because they are safe within the majority of public opinion. That's the privilege I'm talking about - the privilege of blissful ignorance.

[StaceyinLA]

I think Stacey' s original point was that people who choose to engage in debate over controversial topics need to pull up their big boy/girl panties and neither resort to personal attacks nor take opposing statements personally.

Stacey, is this fairly close?

Yes, it is.

[Desert Strawberry]

Yes, it is.

Oh honey. You sure did get led off course. Maybe you want to walk away from this one. I'm sure this is not what you were planning to do with your afternoon.

[SKL]

 Maybe you need to define severely punish...murder, lynching, torture...I'll agree, severe and not intelligent. Socking someone with monetary fines, making companies pay until it hurts their bottom line, realizing their "morals" come second to profit? No comparison.

 

You know exactly what I mean.  The clear intent is to shut those people up for as long as possible, and more importantly, instill fear in everyone else who has or ever had a similar opinion.

 

One wonders whether the value of "equal rights" is even worth much in a society where one must fear expressing an opinion - even in private.

 

The only reason we have made the progress we have - or ever hope to make more - is because we value open dialogue.  Or at least, we used to.

[Joanne]

Since several people failed to understand my point about Jefferson and Lincoln, I will clarify. 

 

Both of them had expressed opinions and/or acted in ways that would have gotten them shut down under the current rule that "you are entitled to your opinion but you'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences of expressing it, i.e., being shut down, economically and politically ruined."

 

For example, Lincoln had earlier spoken out in support of the right to own slaves.  Jefferson was a slave owner, although he claimed to not like slavery.

 

These and every great person held views that were arguably not correct, not kind, and not entirely popular even in the time they held them.  There were MANY loud voices against slavery even at the time the US declared independence.  Yet these people were not destroyed, they were able to go on to do great things and are now considered part of the reason the tide turned in favor of outright abolition of slavery.

 

People who believe in severely punishing the expression of certain opinions must believe that anyone who disagrees with them must have no potential for good.  That is not a very intelligent view.  If this trend grows, it will hurt our country.

 

I understood and understand your point. It's simply not on topic or accurate for the thread.

 

The men DID knowingly risk themselves by taking stands. And humans do the same today, every day. (In the US, anyway)

Your understanding of free speech, history, political change/cultural change and the whole process of change and dialog is not accurate.

[plumshadow]

I am Ok with the swift reaction of the public and the Commissioner.  The country was made aware, players were made aware, fans were made aware and the next generation was made aware of his beliefs. Every generation in America has borne witness to racism and every generation has been progressively aggressive with their response. All the way from "Yes sa boss" to this incident. Whining by definition is to protest or complain in a child like fashion. I personally don't see standing up for racism child like.  For those who have never know oppression intimately it might be kind of hard to understand the satisfaction when at the end of the day after the ugliness was put out there to sit back and see that not only does the affected community not agree but neither does most of the country.  The minor irritation of those who are not even affected is a price worth paying for forward progress.  

[Jane in NC]

As an aside, I thought some folks might like to read up on the Negro Motorist Green Book.  It's a guide, published from 1936-1966, by Mr. Victor H. Green, listing safe places that black folks might patronize on their travels, before there were public accommodations laws.  It includes gas stations, restaurants, hotels, beauty parlors, and more.  Imagine you are taking a trip back then.  Take a look at the book, and see what is listed in the areas you may have visited.  We've come a long way.  

Thank you for linking this.  Last week I had lunch at one of the restored hotels (now a historic site) listed in the Green Book.  It was a fascinating experience!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think this is the sort of thing that the OP is referring too.

 

Nothing like forcing groupthink on the population. If you don't tow our line we will punish you.

 

As vile as his statements were he should be able to voice them without sanctions of any kind.

 

Free speech and all that.

 

Now if the fans and the players didn't like what he had to say, they are free to leave and spend their money elsewhere.

 

I think collectively ignoring is far more productive then collectively punishing and forcing people to express and hold "appropriate" opinions. I think people by their nature don't like being forced to do anything, even if it is for the "greater good". I think it just gets people hackles up and doesn't really change them. They may be going through the motions of PC behaviour but still hold racist or any other "ist" type of views.

 

Again, this is not a free speech issue.

 

And the NBA is responding to what the fans and employees want by banning Sterling.  The fan reaction was hurting the league as a whole so they are reacting to protect the financial interests of every owner.

[Serenade]

And the Clippers dude, again, was in his own home. The fact that he should be held accountable for something he said in the privacy of his home is absolutely absurd. There are MANY objectionable things about him, but his private opinion should be just that.

This is what is concerning to me. But eh, that's what the Facebook dude said, that nobody is entitled to privacy. That is more and more becoming the case. I guess people will have to have their guests and family check their phones and recording devices at the door. Or maybe it is better not to have any friends or family at all. Then you don't have to worry about revenge if they turn on you.

[Slartibartfast]

You know exactly what I mean.  The clear intent is to shut those people up for as long as possible, and more importantly, instill fear in everyone else who has or ever had a similar opinion.

 

One wonders whether the value of "equal rights" is even worth much in a society where one must fear expressing an opinion - even in private.

 

The only reason we have made the progress we have - or ever hope to make more - is because we value open dialogue.  Or at least, we used to.

 

 

 

I don't value opinions from people who agree with Sterling.  A person's right to free speech only extends to the point where my rights are not being violated.  I don't have to listen.

 

People have the right to stand on the corner and express their opinion but they do not have the right to have their opinion be hosted by others. There are plenty of racist websites who I am sure agree wholeheartedly with what Sterling had to say and their speech is only limited in that no one else wants to pay to host it.

 

The NBA is not a government body. It is independent and likely they have their own conduct clause for owners (many organizations have morality or conduct clauses) if he violated that then that is within their rights. The NBA is not required to allow him to own a nationally competitive basketball team.

 

[WishboneDawn]

Yes, it is.

Then I am totally in agreement.:)

[StaceyinLA]

I'm not comparing news sources, I'm providing examples of the kind of targets that are clearly not being demoralized and belittled and reduced to objects of ridicule, whining, lawsuits, and general persecution. If your claim was accurate, where is the evidence? What examples can you show us? Why do organizations like Fox News, radio personalities like Bryan Fischer, and religious leaders like Pat Robertson continue to offer the kind of opinion you are saying gets shut down? They don't just offer it, they offer it on a global scale, to the tune of millions of viewers. Your argument makes no sense because it contains no facts. Well, so far I've not seen facts, just opinion.

 

**Are you seriously saying that Fox News isn't attacked and belittled? Of course it doesn't really matter because people are certainly entitled to agree or not with the news stations of their choice.**

 

I agree with you that in many instances people could, and should, stop whining and move on. This sort of begs the question, why don't you just move on, but I think your argument is worth attention. I think your appeal is genuine, and I can respect that. Your beliefs are held by many, but they're based on faulty logic, misinformation, and emotional appeals, and I wonder if you can see that. As far as the privilege I'm talking about, I'm referring to the privilege of saying offensive things without public backlash.

 

**Move on from what? I'm sorry, but my beliefs aren't based on faulty logic any more than yours or anyone else's. I don't think I have ever had the privilege of saying offensive things without backlash, nor do I really desire to be an offensive person. I do not think, for instance, that my saying I'm not in support of gay marriage is an offensive statement. I'm not ridiculing it, making ugly comments about it, or anything else. Explain how my simply stating I'm not in support of it is offensive.**

 

Fifty years ago, from his jail cell in Birmingham, Dr. MLK Jr wrote, "I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in non-violent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with."

 

We see marches today (Pride Parades, for example) that do this very thing - they expose the tension that is already there, bringing to the surface what exists, exposing it out in the open, forcing us as a society to recognize it, and confront it. The privilege is in not having to deal with it. The privilege is in blissful ignorance of the tension that exists to entire groups of people to the extent you may not be aware. You may think these things don't affect you personally, after all, you're not actively shouting down gay couples as they walk into a church on their wedding day. But they do affect you in that they affect your community, your society, your nation as a whole. Within the next generation or two Christians will likely be the minority in this nation, and I'm quite sure they will be grateful to utilize these time-honored practices of calling out injustice.

 

**Certainly these issues affect us all., and I don't think there is privilege in not having to confront it. We all have to confront the issues surrounding us, and within our communities. Another thing I can assure you is if Christians ever do become the minority, they will never get the privilege of the same "rights" as everyone else.**

 

Right now many people are still privileged enough to form an opinion and believe it without having to deal with the facts that challenge it. They can surround themselves with like-minded people and safely assume if they said or did something against a marginalized group, they'd be quickly justified or at least forgiven. But part of protecting a free society is exposing those marginalized groups, bringing to light the hidden tension that exists with or without their knowledge. You don't have to know about these things, but gone are the days where ignorance is an excuse to continue marginalizing people. Gone are the days where one's opinions will be respected and protected simply because they are safe within the majority of public opinion. That's the privilege I'm talking about - the privilege of blissful ignorance.

**It's not blissful ignorance that's been the privilege. The privilege has been living in a country that was founded on moral, Christian values and principles. Sadly, our society has been gradually undermining that for years, and here we are.**

[Slartibartfast]

**It's not blissful ignorance that's been the privilege. The privilege has been living in a country that was founded on moral, Christian values and principles. Sadly, our society has been gradually undermining that for years, and here we are.**

 

I think we differ on the definition of moral values. I prefer today's more "modern" values where people are not paying for the scalps of my children. Frankly gay marriage seems pretty darn great by comparison.

[Joanne]

**It's not blissful ignorance that's been the privilege. The privilege has been living in a country that was founded on moral, Christian values and principles. Sadly, our society has been gradually undermining that for years, and here we are.**

 

I believe that to be an uninformed, inaccurate viewpoint and opinion. You are entitled to it, as readers are entitled to vehemently disagree.

 

If by Christian, you mean Jesus-inspired, I think inclusiveness, love, tolerance, and equality are Christian principles. Not that the Founding Fathers used Christian principles; they were mixed in their spirituality. I don't see Jesus principles involved in the hate being "protected" by the anti-PC rhetoric.

[SKL]

I just think we are acting like an uneducated mob or like a bunch of cave men or chimpanzees when we go for someone's throat the minute they make a "politically incorrect" statement.  It signifies social stagnation, not progress, in my opinion.

 

"I disagree" or "I disagree on the following basis" really should be sufficient most of the time.

 

That is not to say I agree with any of the opinions expressed by these people.  The fact that I am not screaming or protesting or boycotting does not signify agreement.

[justasque]

**It's not blissful ignorance that's been the privilege. The privilege has been living in a country that was founded on moral, Christian values and principles. Sadly, our society has been gradually undermining that for years, and here we are.**

 

I would argue that the basketball team owner has violated any number of moral Christian values and principles, starting with having a mistress in the first place, and continuing through the disrespectful treatment of his employees.  His words were shocking to me.  I am not used to hearing that kind of speech, from good,moral people who are Christians or from good, moral people who are of other/no faith.  This is not a Christian vs. non-Christian issue.  I would hope that the majority of us, whether we agree with the girlfriend's making his speech public or not, and whether we agree with the public's reaction or not, and whether we agree with the league's response or not, can agree that (barring the possibility of dementia) this is not the speech of a good, moral man.

[elegantlion]

I think we differ on the definition of moral values. I prefer today's more "modern" values where people are not paying for the scalps of my children. Frankly gay marriage seems pretty darn great by comparison.

 

Agreed. I about finished with my semester of American History from Reconstruction onward. Whoa! 

 

Yes, let's return to the times:

 

*slavery

*racial oppression

*women not allowed to vote

*Executive Order 9066 that allowed our government to imprison over 100k Japanese Americans during WWII simply because of the ethnicity 

*segregation

*tenement housing

*openly racist Presidents

*college education as a privilege of the elite

----and those are just the ones off the top of my head. 

 

 

I prefer today, thank you. 

[Slartibartfast]

I just think we are acting like an uneducated mob or like a bunch of cave men or chimpanzees when we go for someone's throat the minute they make a "politically incorrect" statement.  It signifies social stagnation, not progress, in my opinion.

"I disagree" or "I disagree on the following basis" really should be sufficient most of the time.

 

"Politically correctness" is when people want people to use terms such as "firefighter" instead of "fireman."

 

What Sterling said is not "politically incorrect" it is racist, bigoted, and should be condemned.

[idnib]

The only reason we have made the progress we have - or ever hope to make more - is because we value open dialogue.  Or at least, we used to.

 

 

Sorry, I must have missed this. There was a time in history when everyone was allowed to engage in open dialogue and nobody was disenfranchised or lambasted and/or shut down for their unpopular opinions? When was this golden era?  ;)

[albeto.]

**It's not blissful ignorance that's been the privilege. The privilege has been living in a country that was founded on moral, Christian values and principles. Sadly, our society has been gradually undermining that for years, and here we are.**

 

The claim that this nation was founded on moral, Christian values and principles has not been supported. The claim that it was founded on the values of the Enlightenment, appeal to rational thinking rather than religious or monarchical authority, a democratic republic, on the other hand, is supported. The historical record shows this. Nevertheless, I suspect the bolded is what causes you the real angst, the OP being a symptom of that angst. I don't agree with your premise here, and I find evidence to the contrary, but I'm glad to have gotten to the root of this concern. 

[poppy]

I just think we are acting like an uneducated mob or like a bunch of cave men or chimpanzees when we go for someone's throat the minute they make a "politically incorrect" statement.  It signifies social stagnation, not progress, in my opinion.

 

"I disagree" or "I disagree on the following basis" really should be sufficient most of the time.

 

That is not to say I agree with any of the opinions expressed by these people.  The fact that I am not screaming or protesting or boycotting does not signify agreement.

 

 

Can we just stop with "politically correct"? There is no such thing. If you mean racist, say racist.

[SKL]

When white people were debating African Americans' right to vote, the people who were screaming and acting incontinent were, A, not the people who we now respect, and B, not the people who ultimately won out.