48Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksClippers owner: NBA bans Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life - CNN.com
and
nevada cattle rancher: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-racist_n_5204821.html
April 30th, 2014, 12:38 AM
Clippers owner: NBA bans Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life - CNN.com
and
nevada cattle rancher: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-racist_n_5204821.html
All I can add is what Andy Borowitz of the Newyorker wrote:
“Look, I know I’m not perfect,” he said. “But when Donald Trump takes your side, you have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself, ‘Have I become some kind of monster?’”
DONALD STERLING APOLOGIZES
Random people being racist isn't big news, really.
one of these dudes isn't necessarily a random dudeOriginally Posted by SowZ37
If only that were true
NBA bans Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life - CNN.com
Sterling, Silver? WTF?Adam Silver detailed Sterling's punishment of a lifetime ban
I feel like I tripped over a comedy script.
Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.
Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
I am encouraged by the fact that thirty years ago this would not have been news and a majority of WASPs would have agreed with Sterling's statements. Progress is slow, but it is progress.
Sterling might be a racist, but I think Bundy falls into the broader spectrum of simply being batsh*t crazy. Racism is just one of the many subcategories of that dubious distinction.
While I agree with the fine I really can't understand by law if they can force him to sell the team. They don't make people who commit vehicular homicide sell their cars.
Ive met a young racist person for real once, a young lady that was otherwise nice, but that these two media examples are older people it could be a sign that there might be a generational shift? I dont know. Would there be a time in the future when racism is in even more of a decline when racism is something mostly associated with old people(good old days, clinging to old ways)? (conservative folks are sometimes a few centuries late but their descendants will get there eventually.)
This being said, public condemnation and media exposure will more likely make racist people limit their expression of the racist view they have, but information about the arbitrary nature of the race meme might provide elements to realize racism is in part due to ignorance.
Go to Joe the Rancher, what ever is name is, with a black man (that has the same blood type has him) and with a white man that has incompatible blood type, and ask him if he had an accident which person should he receive blood from (before telling him which blood types they have) and then reveal that his life would be saved and that is own "white" blood (lol) is the same type as the "black" man. Make a reality tv show where racist are asked questions, like which man would he/she want as a surgeon, and of course you have a surgeon with dark skin and a plumber with lighter skin. Give them a Benjamin Moore colour strip so they can use it to gage the skin of each person they are meeting in the show (and look ridiculous in the process).
Last edited by icewendigo; April 30th, 2014 at 09:19 AM.
From what I understand, they are pressuring him to sell, but they can't force him to sell. I have only heard the story in passing, though.
I still find it baffling that here is such a thing as racism now-a-days.
We are humans. We evolved from tribal primates into tribal humans. Those who are not of the tribe are dangerous. This is a good survival strategy. It helped us progress. We just need to channel it into supporting this ice hockey team rather than that, instead of using it to justify unwarranted hatred, or misplaced sense of superiority.
There isn't. Didn't you hear?
That's why Congress is overturning all of those pieces of legislation enacted during the civil rights movement. Racism is over!
It's okay to be white again!
I share your dismay.I still find it baffling that here is such a thing as racism now-a-days.
If my parents were racist, and I lived in a conservative environment/region far from continental exchange nodes, and that my sources of information were Fox news etc, I might be racist too. I might eventually change my views based on new information (that showed the stereotypes and false/arbitrary perceptions are just that), or filter out information that did not match my perception of reality/views while strongly noticing any element that can be interpreted along my racist views, and misinterpret correlated factors (cultural matches) as being a result of the "race" (as opposed to sub-culture) and remain a racist.
A newborn baby is not racist, It doesnt know it is human or where it was born, I suppose that the babies growing into adults integrate information from their environment that in some cases misleads them to judge other humans based on the arbitrary and superficial parameter of skin pigmentation.
Btw, some people that are not racist from a US perspective are still racists from a broader sense, because although they do not have discrimination reflexes towards an arbitrary label "white" "black" they still use the labels and fail to see these labels as meaningless arbitrary fabricated crap (they dont have ill feelings towards another "race" without realizing the very concept of race is crap).
Don't think they'll be able to force him to sell or at least not without a nasty legal battle that he is likely to win.
I disagree with his racist comments and think him an ignorant fool. But no one has to attend their games either. (think the whole response was more about protecting the $ than sincerity against racism).
But when did we loose the right to speak our minds? It wasn't hate speak. I think actions against him are even more dangerous. This is a pretty simple free speech issue and he was well within his rights to express racist comments.
We didn't. There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of speech without consequence.
The NBA should still have the right to ban anyone they want for any reason they want. They are acting upon their right as an independent business. Sterling shouldn't be forced to sell his team for the same reason the NBA shouldn't be forced to allow him to interact with their company.
I don't. Fearing and mistrusting "other" people is hardwired into us. It served a function in early society; recognition of strangers who might want to take your stuff.
I don't think he (Sterling) will win. He has history of discriminatory behavior which get more notoriety. A prolong legal battle will only make him a bigger social pariah. If he settles quickly, he gets half is money (the wife gets the other through divorce) and gets to move on.
The recorded private comments themselves were not the only reason the league has taken this action. In addition to the lawsuit he settled there has been other claims of employer misconduct. The social climate is changing where bigots (as it relates to race, gender, sexual orientation) will be outed publicly, made accessible via the internet, and the majority of society will avoid interacting with them.I think actions against him are even more dangerous. This is a pretty simple free speech issue and he was well within his rights to express racist comments.
Free Speech relates to the government violating the 1st Amendment. This is purely a social and economic penalty.
Last edited by MrMojo1; April 30th, 2014 at 04:42 PM.
" Fearing and mistrusting "other" people is hardwired into us."
I disagree. If thats the case how do you explain the many people that are not racist? Fear and mistrust is not hardwired, some babies cry while with strangers, others dont at all, and later theres even less traces of hardwired-ness on kids not told to fear strangers. If you visit a number of different cultures you might come to the same conclusion. I know children for whom 'racism' is an alien and unknown concept.
Different situation. He owns the team at the pleasure of the league and the other owners. If the other owners vote for him to sell the team he has no option but to do so. It's kinda like a corporate takeover.
A few years back Rush Limbaugh was trying to buy a football team (The Rams I think) and the Owners all blocked the sale to him. It's the same type of situation.
Last edited by grmpysmrf; April 30th, 2014 at 02:40 PM.
See above postFrom what I understand, they are pressuring him to sell, but they can't force him to sell. I have only heard the story in passing, though.
from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/us/cli...rling-scandal/
"The commissioner said "I fully expect" to get the needed three-quarters of the league's owners -- meaning at least 23 -- to back the move, though Sterling could fight any such move in court."
I think Sterling will lose. But it all comes down to the wording of the contract as an owner. if it's written that he's not allowed to disgrace the league or anything like that and the owners have a right to force him to sell he has no backing.
He has the right to speak his mind he doesn't have the right to own a basketball team.
I disagree with his ability to do so. he is full well able to be a hypocrite but I think his actions border on fraud and fraud is against the law.
Which is baffling why the NAACP would give him 2 lifetime achievement awards... Makes the NAACP look really bad!I don't he (Sterling) will win. He has history of discriminatory behavior which get more notoriety.
Good luck trying to prove that in court, especially if it's all just "claims" and no actual documentations.
Speaking of private comments, that woman is toast! She broke the law so bad. I'm sure he will sue that woman so bad that her grandkids' grandkids will owe his family money. although, even still I think she has done more damage to him than he will do to her.
For the better.
Agreed completely
He is well within his rights to state that he thinks the world would be better off if Arica sunk into the sea and the whole holocaust is a Kike conspiracy. And we are within our rights to say we think that is despicable and we won't support him. His employers are then within their rights to distance himself from him. Since when did freedom of speech mean, "You must always let me say whatever I want with zero consequences?" Don't I, as an employer, have rights, too? Do I lose the right to run my business as I see fit?
It is like when someone says something offensive, people jump on him, he says, "Hey, what about freedom of speech?" That includes freedom of speech to ridicule other speech. And, "Hey, what I am saying is not actually illegal to say," is the worst justification for a point of view I can think of.
I agree that humans can be clannish and fearful of outsiders who look or act differently, and that may be hardwired, but I also think the cues for "different" are highly malleable. Here's a story:
When I took AP history in high school, we had these things called document based questions on our exams. The object was to examine a set of documents and answer an essay question based on the data or information in the documents. I remember one question that no one in the entire class got right. The document was a list of congressmen and how they voted on issue in the early 1900s. None of us could see any pattern from just those lists of names and their states. The clue was their last names - they voted along certain ethnic lines. But to suburban kids in Ohio in 1977, having an "Irish" or "German" or "Italian" or "English" last name didn't signify anything. It didn't even register. (The teacher actually said she was kind of pleased that kids no longer got that question right.)
Here's another story. I did my student teaching at a middle class suburban school in Columbus, Ohio. Some of the students were bused into that school from the inner city. I think when the busing first started it was an attempt to desegregate the schools, but by 1990, an increasing percentage of the students getting bused in were white, and at the same time, more of the black students were actually middle class kids whose parents had bought homes in that suburb. Walking into a class room, a teacher could not make any assumptions about the back ground or experiences of the students sitting in those chairs based on race. It was a really interesting situation.
My point is once skin color is no longer any sort of indicator about how much a stranger is "like" you, it won't be a cue for fear, or trigger that tribal mentality. Despite knuckleheads like Sterling, I believe we're almost there. Maybe at this point, it's just a matter of waiting until the rest of the racists die off, and Sterling looks like he's getting pretty close.
Last edited by DianeG; April 30th, 2014 at 06:10 PM.
Actually, that may not be an issue. The case will go into arbitration first. If the NBA has cause under its constitution and policies (which Sterling signed to be part of the club) and can prove he violated those policies, then they cut him. The code of "legal evidence" isn't as high in arbitration cases.Good luck trying to prove that in court, especially if it's all just "claims" and no actual documentations.
Speaking of private comments, that woman is toast! She broke the law so bad. I'm sure he will sue that woman so bad that her grandkids' grandkids will owe his family money. although, even still I think she has done more damage to him than he will do to her.
He is the legal owner of the franchize....it's not just "at his pleasure." While they might try the 2/3 vote by other owners under the NBA Constitution there are several steps they need to cross. 1) they need to establish that the Constitution is in fact a legally binding document. 2) they need to have serious discussion about whether a legal precedent to force people from ownership can or should be based on completely legal activities such as his comments--in most (if not all) similar cases, there's clear illegality involved such as gambling--that is not the case with Stirling. And even than it's not cut and dry at all: Fundamental Constitutional rights, such as free speech factor MUCH higher and than civil law contracts--this is why I very much doubt an NBA decision to pull ownership would win if Stirling were willing to push it up through the courts.Different situation. He owns the team at the pleasure of the league and the other owners. If the other owners vote for him to sell the team he has no option but to do so. It's kinda like a corporate takeover.
A few years back Rush Limbaugh was trying to buy a football team (The Rams I think) and the Owners all blocked the sale to him. It's the same type of situation.
Hey, I'm not trying to make waves but several other members have noted the "free speech" argument is invalid in that government is not levying penalties on him. If you walk into your work tomorrow and start telling people privately that you "hate niggers" they will fire you. no free speech about. Mr. Flick probably makes the best case for the NBA dropping him.(post18)He is the legal owner of the franchize....it's not just "at his pleasure." While they might try the 2/3 vote by other owners under the NBA Constitution there are several steps they need to cross. 1) they need to establish that the Constitution is in fact a legally binding document. 2) they need to have serious discussion about whether a legal precedent to force people from ownership can or should be based on completely legal activities such as his comments--in most (if not all) similar cases, there's clear illegality involved such as gambling--that is not the case with Stirling. And even than it's not cut and dry at all: Fundamental Constitutional rights, such as free speech factor MUCH higher and than civil law contracts--this is why I very much doubt an NBA decision to pull ownership would win if Stirling were willing to push it up through the courts.Different situation. He owns the team at the pleasure of the league and the other owners. If the other owners vote for him to sell the team he has no option but to do so. It's kinda like a corporate takeover.
A few years back Rush Limbaugh was trying to buy a football team (The Rams I think) and the Owners all blocked the sale to him. It's the same type of situation.
If the corporation no longer wants to associate with a franchise owner they do not have to. I obviously don't know the specifics of their contracts, you could be right that they can't legally force him to sell it (Although, I still maintain they can based on what I know of ownership of professional sports teams-it is indeed at the pleasure of the organization. if the other owners don't want somebody to buy a team then they cannot.) but they also don't have to be connected to that franchise. So I suppose it is possible that the NBA could drop the Clippers as a team... either way he no longer owns an "NBA" team.
I would think that #2 of your steps would be covered in what's basically a given in any contract, that you don't do anything to embarrass the league or the team. I would bet that that clause is in there and if so #2 is easily crossed... not sure what the NBA constitution being a legally binding document has any importance because the terms in the contract in which he purchased the team would probably trump all, Where I'm sure, "Don't embarrass the league" is written.
It is legal for an owner of a basketball team to be fired, just like a CEO can be forced out by the board. If this man instead owned ten million dollars worth of Basketball memorabilia, and then said racists things, it would be an infringement of freedom of speech to try and take them away from him just because he is a racist. But it is not an infringement of freedom of speech to get fired for being a bigoted idiot.He is the legal owner of the franchize....it's not just "at his pleasure." While they might try the 2/3 vote by other owners under the NBA Constitution there are several steps they need to cross. 1) they need to establish that the Constitution is in fact a legally binding document. 2) they need to have serious discussion about whether a legal precedent to force people from ownership can or should be based on completely legal activities such as his comments--in most (if not all) similar cases, there's clear illegality involved such as gambling--that is not the case with Stirling. And even than it's not cut and dry at all: Fundamental Constitutional rights, such as free speech factor MUCH higher and than civil law contracts--this is why I very much doubt an NBA decision to pull ownership would win if Stirling were willing to push it up through the courts.Different situation. He owns the team at the pleasure of the league and the other owners. If the other owners vote for him to sell the team he has no option but to do so. It's kinda like a corporate takeover.
A few years back Rush Limbaugh was trying to buy a football team (The Rams I think) and the Owners all blocked the sale to him. It's the same type of situation.
Not if the CEO is the owner. In addition after reading the conditions that the other owners might want to kick him, none of them come close to fitting valid reasons for doing so under article 13 of the Constitution.
While I appreciation the revulsion it's far worse that people think there should be de facto legal consequences to remove property for a legal private comment-- Orwell is rolling. People might get what they want of course--where off color comments said in privacy are grounds for taking people's stuff.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 30th, 2014 at 08:39 PM.
We have seen many other professional leagues where the group of owners have opened/closed down team franchises. I suspect that their franchise constitution allows the majority of owners to grant/remove franchise ownership within guidelines. I doubt this issue will ever see the inside of a civil courthouse. Owners have been punished before.
These professional clubs have legions of lawyers who draft performance contracts on a regular basis.
Of course there is. Here they are:
"(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.
(b) Transfer or attempt to transfer a Membership or an interest in a Member without complying with the provisions of Article 5.
(c) Fail to pay any dues or other indebtedness owing to the Association within thirty (30) days after Written Notice from the Commissioner of default in such payment.
(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.
(e) Wager or countenance wagering by its officers or employees on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.
(f) Willfully permit open betting, pool selling, or any other form of gambling upon any premises owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the Member or an Owner, except, subject to Article 8(a), for gambling activities that are lawful in the applicable jurisdiction and do not involve in any way, directly or indirectly, gambling with respect to any aspect of the Association’s games, events, property, players, or other personnel.
(g) Offer, agree, conspire, or attempt to lose or control the score of any game participated in by a Team operated by a Member of the Association, or fail to suspend immediately any officer or any Player or other employee of the Member who shall be found guilty, in a court of law or in any hearing sanctioned by this Constitution and By- Laws, of offering, agreeing, conspiring, or attempting to lose or control the score of any such game or of being interested in any pool or wager on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.
(h) Disband its Team during the Season, dissolve its business, or cease its operation.
(i) Willfully fail to present its Team at the time and place it is scheduled to play in an Exhibition, Regular Season, or Playoff Game.
(j) Willfully misrepresent any material fact contained in its application for Membership in the Association."
His private comments do not fit into any of them, therefore the 3/4 vote probably does not apply.
--
(image the reverse where a few decades ago, he said something pro-civil rights in private, and were being removed as owner).
Not true.Not if the CEO is the owner.
George Zimmer's Firing From Men's Wearhouse Puts Him In Company Of Many Other Ousted Founders
more than half of founding CEOs leave within just three to four years after they start their companies -- before they have a chance to become well-known enough to grab headlines.
I have not read the NBA constitution, but as I posted before I don't know what ground it could stand against the wording in his actual contract with the league.
Probably one of the prices that is paid for operating a legal monopoly. You're right, under any other circumstances I don't think anyone should or could be deprived of their property, but this is not a normal company or normal "ownership." I've never lived in one, but I understand it as along the same lines of a Home Owners Association where people sign a contract to live in a house that they own but can be fined and even be forced to sell their property if the don't follow the housing communities rules and are kicked out.
I doubt Orwell is rolling over for this one. This isn't setting a precedent for everyday life. These are contracts and businesses in extraordinary situations. Unfortunately for Sterling, he chose poorly with who to make his private comments to and as such they did not stay so. Society can't just ignore this now that it's out from behind closed doors.
His private comments are no longer so.
I also think that the term racist is often misused. Read my not so short rant about it. I mean I could be wrong, but I think I make good points.
Founder is not the same as an owner--especially after it goes public such as in the Men's warehouse. Than it usually comes down to controlling interest ($) in the company or franchize).Not true.Not if the CEO is the owner.
George Zimmer's Firing From Men's Wearhouse Puts Him In Company Of Many Other Ousted Founders
The NBA has contracts in so far as what being the owner means. This man signed those contracts. He knew how the NBA functions. Maybe he didn't realize that those statements would end his career as owner, but he knew that owning a basketball team was not like owning a car. He knew he could lose it. He agreed to that, so it is not a violation of free speech.Founder is not the same as an owner--especially after it goes public such as in the Men's warehouse. Than it usually comes down to controlling interest ($) in the company or franchize).Not true.Not if the CEO is the owner.
George Zimmer's Firing From Men's Wearhouse Puts Him In Company Of Many Other Ousted Founders
I don't know where you live or where you're from but that piece is unreadable for someone like me. Using terms like 'negroid' puts me right off straight away, and I found it really hard to not find a negative flavour in everything that followed. And then. You used the same term again! Reinforcing the problems I was already having.I also think that the term racist is often misused. Read my not so short rant about it. I mean I could be wrong, but I think I make good points.
Let's get this topic straight.
We. are. all. racist. in one way or many ways.
We. are. all. sexist. in one way or many ways.
It's inescapable, all cultures are drenched in both, some have laws to constrain and/or to penalise some of the worst forms. All people are surrounded by racist and sexist assumptions and presumptions to a greater or lesser extent.
It's silly to wriggle and squirm and try to say that some things are not racist or sexist when most people would see them that way and, especially, when women or people of particular colour/ ethnicity/ nationality/ religion see them that way even if others fail to see what they're getting at. (I've included religion because we all know people who treat Muslim or Jewish as a racial term of abuse rather than a religious description.)
I'm not going back to check my memory because I'll be irritated by other things but I'll refer to something that struck me. The woman who said that she preferred white men to black men. (Yes, let's use those terms unless there are more accurate ones like South Asian or freckled Scottish.) Unless she was stating that her preference was only and entirely because of the skin colour itself, she''s probably being racist in some way. Personally, I think that even mentioning skin colour is likely to come across as racist to people of the colour/ ethnicity/ nationality in question unless the topic under discussion is skin cancer or vitamin D absorption or medical research priorities.
Fine, would using cognoid be better? I mean after all it is the more accurate term. How was the lady being racist, will you elaborate on that? So I am racist because I do not like pale guys as partners, yet we are of the same race?I don't know where you live or where you're from but that piece is unreadable for someone like me. Using terms like 'negroid' puts me right off straight away, and I found it really hard to not find a negative flavour in everything that followed. And then. You used the same term again! Reinforcing the problems I was already having.I also think that the term racist is often misused. Read my not so short rant about it. I mean I could be wrong, but I think I make good points.
Let's get this topic straight.
We. are. all. racist. in one way or many ways.
We. are. all. sexist. in one way or many ways.
It's inescapable, all cultures are drenched in both, some have laws to constrain and/or to penalise some of the worst forms. All people are surrounded by racist and sexist assumptions and presumptions to a greater or lesser extent.
It's silly to wriggle and squirm and try to say that some things are not racist or sexist when most people would see them that way and, especially, when women or people of particular colour/ ethnicity/ nationality/ religion see them that way even if others fail to see what they're getting at. (I've included religion because we all know people who treat Muslim or Jewish as a racial term of abuse rather than a religious description.)
I'm not going back to check my memory because I'll be irritated by other things but I'll refer to something that struck me. The woman who said that she preferred white men to black men. (Yes, let's use those terms unless there are more accurate ones like South Asian or freckled Scottish.) Unless she was stating that her preference was only and entirely because of the skin colour itself, she''s probably being racist in some way. Personally, I think that even mentioning skin colour is likely to come across as racist to people of the colour/ ethnicity/ nationalality in question unless the topic under discussion is skin cancer or vitamin D absorption or medical research priorities.
I know what you are trying to get at, but the true definition of racist involves _treating_ someone differently because of race. We all have different reactions to people who look different than we do. Some feel immediately mistrustful, some react with fear, heck some are attracted to them. It's not our visceral, unconscious response that determines whether we are racist, it is our actions towards them that determine that.
To use your example of the woman - if she was attracted more to white men than black men, that's not in and of itself racist. If she would reject a man she was close to based PURELY on his race, where she would start a relationship if he were a different race, then she might well be.
No. This use of pseudo-technical descriptions for people in ordinary social settings seems inappropriate.
To me it has the tone of all that 19th century purity of races nonsense. Australia finally got rid of the "White Australia" policy a few decades ago, but there are still people here who talk a lot of rubbish about race, especially about refugees and indigenous people. Some of that "rubbish" is perpetually festering nastiness. The same thing goes for most countries I know about.
Focusing on distracting side issues like using a version of technical language is counter-productive. The best way to describe people is by the terms they themselves prefer - always noting that many groups use "in-group" language that is unacceptable when used by people who are not of that group.
Why inappropriate? You would not refer a chimpanzee, human, gorilla or an orangutan all as a hominidae, instead you would refer to them as a chimpanzee, human, gorilla, orangutan respectively. This is a science forum after all.
Ok. I got nothing else.Founder is not the same as an owner--especially after it goes public such as in the Men's warehouse. Than it usually comes down to controlling interest ($) in the company or franchize).Not true.Not if the CEO is the owner.
George Zimmer's Firing From Men's Wearhouse Puts Him In Company Of Many Other Ousted Founders
YEAH!!! what he said!!The NBA has contracts in so far as what being the owner means. This man signed those contracts. He knew how the NBA functions. Maybe he didn't realize that those statements would end his career as owner, but he knew that owning a basketball team was not like owning a car. He knew he could lose it. He agreed to that, so it is not a violation of free speech.Founder is not the same as an owner--especially after it goes public such as in the Men's warehouse. Than it usually comes down to controlling interest ($) in the company or franchize).Not true.Not if the CEO is the owner.
George Zimmer's Firing From Men's Wearhouse Puts Him In Company Of Many Other Ousted Founders
<hangs head in shame>
I think you mean to say Prejudice. Prejudice can be racist but it's not exclusive to it.
Anyway, the NBA isn't stealing the team from him. They are just forcing him to sell. He will still get the money for it. He probably will sue the NBA for forcing the sale and then they'll settle and that will compensate for some of his massive fines. (2.5 mil.) The NBA contracts, which Sterling signed and presumably read, state that a 75% majority vote of the governors of a team can force a sale. This is not a civil rights issue. It is a business decision.
I think they have an ethics code.......read some on this earlier.....think they can...though he can fight it.From what I understand, they are pressuring him to sell, but they can't force him to sell. I have only heard the story in passing, though.
Don't we all!
ice hockey team???????????
Don't agree with you
It hurt the team, their families, their fan, and more. They lost sponsors.
I believe there are ethics qualifications that are at the discretion of the commissioner.
He treated his team without respect.
I find that really horrible.
I'll stick to golf.
They are all species names. We are only one species - human.Why inappropriate? You would not refer a chimpanzee, human, gorilla or an orangutan all as a hominidae, instead you would refer to them as a chimpanzee, human, gorilla, orangutan respectively. This is a science forum after all.
Trying to assign "species" or "hybrid" style names to people of different colourings is a bit like saying that a blue budgerigar needs a separate species name from the green or yellow or white budgerigars. They're all the same species, they just have different colourings.
We are all people who have fairly trivial, biologically speaking, surface differences in appearance.
First of, hominidae is not a species, but a taxonomic family. Which of course are composed of the genera I provided. Yes, we do share the same taxonomic family as other genus (that is a shocker). Not to mention that the other genera have more than one species, while ours has only one. Secondly, nobody was placing "style names" based on colour, but actually pointing out race. From what I recollect there are four main races, and various "sub races". Adolf Hitler is a perfect example of someone who was racist. He believed that a "sub race" was SUPERIOR than any other race or "sub race" for that matter. However my point exactly is that people often misuse racist and racism respectively. It is so easy to describe a short white woman than it is to describe a short black woman, or any variant of the source, because as always, someone WILL be accused of being racist. Which is simply inane, because there are PLENTY of dark skin people all over the world who would not fall under one race alone. I mean look at some of the indigenous people around the world, who are dark and NOT of the congoid race. My point is that some people are so quick to throw out the racist word when it does not even apply.
I think you will find that you are remembering concepts that were in fashion half a century or more ago. The concept of race has largely fallen out of favour, partly because of political correctness (a bad reason) and partly because the concept does not hold up to well to close scrutiny (a thoroughly good idea). This is often illustrated by pointing out that there is often more genetic diversity between two individuals in sub-Saharan Africa than there is between two "races".
How so? Just in 2010 I remember being told in academics there are three races, which are primarily called "black", "white", and "yellow". 2010 is not half a century ago, I think it is the persistent idea of wanting to have "pure races" that has made people want to use ethnic groups as races now. Either way, from what I understand as well, is that the US seems to be the main country to want to ask people for their race, and inaccurately may I addd. Since when does being Hawaiian make you a completely different race? Or Hispanic, like wow, completely mind blown at the level of ignorance involved into those.I think you will find that you are remembering concepts that were in fashion half a century or more ago. The concept of race has largely fallen out of favour, partly because of political correctness (a bad reason) and partly because the concept does not hold up to well to close scrutiny (a thoroughly good idea). This is often illustrated by pointing out that there is often more genetic diversity between two individuals in sub-Saharan Africa than there is between two "races".
In my sociology classes I learned it as "Caucasoid," "Mongoloid," and "negroid" and that was mid to late 90's and it was determined by hair. Hair that was circle shaped (Straight) at the end was Monogoloid, Hair that was football shaped (Wavy) was caucasoid, and hair that was octagon shaped (afro) is negroid. Which is why middle eastern people aren't considered black.How so? Just in 2010 I remember being told in academics there are three races, which are primarily called "black", "white", and "yellow".I think you will find that you are remembering concepts that were in fashion half a century or more ago. The concept of race has largely fallen out of favour, partly because of political correctness (a bad reason) and partly because the concept does not hold up to well to close scrutiny (a thoroughly good idea). This is often illustrated by pointing out that there is often more genetic diversity between two individuals in sub-Saharan Africa than there is between two "races".
Laugh out loud, I used those terms in a past post and I got "shit" for it. The teacher was also using these common terms as well, up to date I still use the terms you have mentioned to describe race, if I am asked that is. Usually if someone asks me for their physical appearance I use light or dark skin, because as I have stated, skin colour does not define race. In my class, we used bone structure to define and determine race. There was one, called australoid, yeah I think that was it, but we never talked about it in depth, it only came in passing.In my sociology classes I learned it as "Caucasoid," "Mongoloid," and "negroid" and that was mid to late 90's and it was determined by hair. Hair that was circle shaped (Straight) at the end was Monogoloid, Hair that was football shaped (Wavy) was caucasoid, and hair that was octagon shaped (afro) is negroid. Which is why middle eastern people aren't considered black.How so? Just in 2010 I remember being told in academics there are three races, which are primarily called "black", "white", and "yellow".I think you will find that you are remembering concepts that were in fashion half a century or more ago. The concept of race has largely fallen out of favour, partly because of political correctness (a bad reason) and partly because the concept does not hold up to well to close scrutiny (a thoroughly good idea). This is often illustrated by pointing out that there is often more genetic diversity between two individuals in sub-Saharan Africa than there is between two "races".
Then you both should demand your tuition fees be returned.
Mind elaborating?
Think he already covered that part when he mentioned that the genetic diversity within each so-called "race" is greater than the average genetic differences between each "race." Race is an antiquated idea not based on objective science. Hapligroups, which consider genetic ancestry, are a much better descriptors of people's genetics.Mind elaborating?
Your opinion is supported by... ...?
That might be true but is that adopted or recognized by anything other than your opinion?Think he already covered that part when he mentioned that the genetic diversity within each so-called "race" is greater than the average genetic differences between each "race." Race is an antiquated idea not based on objective science. Hapligroups, which consider genetic ancestry, are a much better descriptors of people's genetics.Mind elaborating?
I am not disputing that race is an antiquated idea, which is why I find the existence of racism baffling in the first place. However, that does not answer my question to him.Think he already covered that part when he mentioned that the genetic diversity within each so-called "race" is greater than the average genetic differences between each "race." Race is an antiquated idea not based on objective science. Hapligroups, which consider genetic ancestry, are a much better descriptors of people's genetics.Mind elaborating?
Yes and there are thousands of scientist publishing that use it because it's more useful.
But just in case, you've not run into it before, here's a 5 min science education about it.
Learning Center :: Genebase Tutorials
It is only the word "race" that is out of favour because of political correctness. It has been replaced with euphemisms like variant, cultivar, variety and strain.
I would mention subspecies as another euphemism for the word race but of course the calling somebody a sub-human would be even worse than calling them a troglodyte.
Troglodytae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay, thank you. I will take a look at it later.Yes and there are thousands of scientist publishing that use it because it's more useful.
But just in case, you've not run into it before, here's a 5 min science education about it.
Learning Center :: Genebase Tutorials
The article Lynx posted is nearly 20 year after I was in college, I hardly think that stands as a reason to demand my money back. There will always be changes especially in the soft sciences. Should my father demand his tuition back because he got whatever degree in computers that he has using a Mac OS II?
I do not need to ask for a refund, I had this in university. Then again I am 23 years old and I was last in university about four years ago, October of 2010 so not quite 4 years ago. It still does not pertain to my original dispute about racism and how it is misused, and how I find it baffling. Love the link to the article though, thank you for that Lynx.
Those are broad categories, anyway. Obviously you are not going to get pure blood race. As I wrote before, at the time I learned it, it was defined by hair, not skin color
The world is such a melting pot anymore........why does "race" even matter......are we going to have to think of new names for Hawai'ians who marry Caucasians, or Hispanics who marry Asians, or Blacks of any nation marrying someone from India?
People are people anymore IMHO...and not to be put into a graph as to race....traditions will change with these melting pots also as they will create new ones!
Race is important for the same reason religions and nationalities are important.
Racism, nationalism and religionism are all ways to divide people into us and them.
If you can't divide people into us and them it is much harder to justify wars.
Remember the idea of divide and rule.
I believe it is divide and conquer.
But same idea!
Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. I know of no reason it shouldn't be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My old gardening texts use the word race to describe the varieties of a type of plant, but even the botanists quit using the word race because of the negative connotations it aquired after 1945. That is the point, and you seemed to have understood it in your second sentence.Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. I know of no reason it shouldn't be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for your first sentence, do you really want to go around calling other people subhumans? Somehow I doubt if that would go over very well.
Last edited by dan hunter; May 2nd, 2014 at 06:08 AM. Reason: correcting referral.
"Sub" just means it's the next level down on the classification chart. It doesn't mean either one of the sub-species is better than the other, although, they might be better adapted to the environment in which they evolved.My old gardening texts use the word race to describe the varieties of a type of plant, but even the botanists quit using the word race because of the negative connotations it aquired after 1945. That is the point, and you seemed to have understood it in your second sentence.Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. I know of no reason it shouldn't be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for your first sentence, do you really want to go around calling other people subhumans? Somehow I doubt if that would go over very well.
Uh huh."Sub" just means it's the next level down on the classification chart. It doesn't mean either one of the sub-species is better than the other, although, they might be better adapted to the environment in which they evolved.
Remember that when somebody starts calling your family a bunch of subhumans.
Due to humans not being geographically isolated from one another, reducing interbreeding, would it not be very hard to define us in terms of subspecies?Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. I know of no reason it shouldn't be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it's just incorrect. Humans have had 'sub species,' using that definition, but not anymore. No ethnicity is close to different enough from another ethnicity to be anything but Homo sapien Sapiens."Sub" just means it's the next level down on the classification chart. It doesn't mean either one of the sub-species is better than the other, although, they might be better adapted to the environment in which they evolved.My old gardening texts use the word race to describe the varieties of a type of plant, but even the botanists quit using the word race because of the negative connotations it aquired after 1945. That is the point, and you seemed to have understood it in your second sentence.Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. I know of no reason it shouldn't be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for your first sentence, do you really want to go around calling other people subhumans? Somehow I doubt if that would go over very well.
Apparently there is something in the contract of owning a team that lets the NBA take the team from him because...
"NBA owners agree to force sale of LA Clippers
"On Thursday the 10-member NBA advisory committee unanimously agreed to begin terminating Mr Sterling's ownership."
"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27248645
I suppose there are still populations which have not significantly interbred outside their original geographic areas.Due to humans not being geographically isolated from one another, reducing interbreeding, would it not be very hard to define us in terms of subspecies?Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. I know of no reason it shouldn't be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How different is different enough? I've seen birds classified as different subspecies based on minor differences in tail feather colors, or something of that nature. Are there any objective criteria?
my 2 cent rant
1- There is no such thing as a "Race", it is a pure arbitrary fabrication. We share genes with freaking yeast mice and lizards, a blood transfusion isnt based on outward appearance but on blood type which as nothing to do with an imaginary "race", race is as ridiculous as believing in the easter bunny, witches or acting different towards people with different eye color, it only makes any remote sense for people in a culture that is racist(they have learned about this fabricated narrative and use it such as saying "obama is the first black president"), racist which I define as making a distinction based on arbitrary skin/superficial features, if you say Obama is "black" imo you are in a racist culture because it is ridiculous to call that human being "black" outside this racist parade bubble of delusion just as it would be outlandish to say "Johnson is the first Green president" [reference to eye colour].
2- There is nothing inherent or "human nature" about selecting the skin pigmentation as a basis for identity or behaviour difference (outside personal superficial preferences for mate selection and functional considerations), children that do not learn to view another kid with a different skin tone as a grouping/categorization parameter do NOT behave any different with kids of various skin tones than they would behave differently towards kids with different eye colour (if you're social environment /culture makes this fact not self evident, It is a fact I observe on a regular basis). There is nothing natural or inherent about the concept of race.
Last edited by icewendigo; May 2nd, 2014 at 02:14 PM.
Classification isn't quite objective in the same way that other fields are objective because it deals with language. But there are criteria. For one, you can't have a main species and a sub species. Either there is just a species, or there are two or more branches and every member of that species falls in one of them. Genetic factors are considered, and has been stated, genetic markers between human ethnicity are very minor in significance. Also, typically speaking, sub species are able to reproduce offspring with each other but don't very often for whatever reason, (usually geographical.) Humans of various regions have become intermixed enough that even if sub species would have eventually come about, they didn't because we weren't isolated.I suppose there are still populations which have not significantly interbred outside their original geographic areas.Due to humans not being geographically isolated from one another, reducing interbreeding, would it not be very hard to define us in terms of subspecies?Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. I know of no reason it shouldn't be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How different is different enough? I've seen birds classified as different subspecies based on minor differences in tail feather colors, or something of that nature. Are there any objective criteria?
In the race argument, saying we are part of different sub-species would be like saying a blue tick hound with black in its fur is a different sub-species than a blue tick hound without the black, which is absurd from a taxonomic POV.
Surely with any species divided into subspecies, there will be some interbreeding at the boundaries of the ranges won't there?
Less significant than, say, the difference between Atlantic and Hudson Bay Canada geese?Genetic factors are considered, and has been stated, genetic markers between human ethnicity are very minor in significance.
The populations were isolated enough, at least at one time, to develop recognizable physical differences, so how do you come to this conclusion?Also, typically speaking, sub species are able to reproduce offspring with each other but don't very often for whatever reason, (usually geographical.) Humans of various regions have become intermixed enough that even if sub species would have eventually come about, they didn't because we weren't isolated.
The burden of proof is actually on you to establish that humans have sub-species, it isn't on me to disprove it. Also, it has happened on multiple occasions that animals once considered sub-species are not sub-species.Surely with any species divided into subspecies, there will be some interbreeding at the boundaries of the ranges won't there?
Less significant than, say, the difference between Atlantic and Hudson Bay Canada geese?Genetic factors are considered, and has been stated, genetic markers between human ethnicity are very minor in significance.
The populations were isolated enough, at least at one time, to develop recognizable physical differences, so how do you come to this conclusion?Also, typically speaking, sub species are able to reproduce offspring with each other but don't very often for whatever reason, (usually geographical.) Humans of various regions have become intermixed enough that even if sub species would have eventually come about, they didn't because we weren't isolated.
Well, I'm not a biologist of any kind, and I haven't made any claims, just asked the question. So I'm not going to try to prove anything. OTOH, you have made a claim.
Would/could Homo Sapiens with Neanderthal DNA be classified as a Homo Sapiens sub-species? Just wondering since we are way off the thread topic. I'm not a biologist either, but since genetic differences between Human and Chip is only 4%.
Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases -- ScienceDaily
That is - to be diplomatic - disingenuous. You have implicitly stated that humans have sub-species. From my knowledge, as another non-biologist - this is patent nonsense and does need to defended, or retracted. On the other hand Sowz37 is simply stating the position that, to my knowledge, is held by the vast majority of anthropologists, primatologists, or any other relevant kind of ologist. As such there is no burden of proof on him.Well, I'm not a biologist of any kind, and I haven't made any claims, just asked the question. So I'm not going to try to prove anything. OTOH, you have made a claim.
I await a suite of peer reviewed research papers discussing the sub-species of homo sapiens. Tell you what, I'll start the ball rolling. Here is a sub-species: Homo sapiens sapiens. I should be fascinated to here from anyone who knows of any other human sub-species that is currently extant!
Sir Galt....you are far smarter than I.
You're wrong about that. I have a completely open mind about the subject. The fact that no one has made such classification doesn't necessarily prove anything. Why should someone go out on a limb and do that? They would immediately be labeled a racist. Me, I don't care what people think. I'm just trying to learn something, and nobody has actually explained it yet.
Well check this out. There's more genetic variation between two rando. Japanese people than the average genetic differences of all Japanese people and all Canadians. There a few ethnic genetic markers, but they are so small that we are all still Homo sapiens sapiens. If there were a couple more levels of classification below sub species, maybe the differences would be large enough to warrant seperate classification. But there isn't. Which is probably good, classification that specific would likely be pretty useless.You're wrong about that. I have a completely open mind about the subject. The fact that no one has made such classification doesn't necessarily prove anything. Why should someone go out on a limb and do that? They would immediately be labeled a racist. Me, I don't care what people think. I'm just trying to learn something, and nobody has actually explained it yet.
So, you assume all racists are white dudes ?Ive met a young racist person for real once, a young lady that was otherwise nice, but that these two media examples are older people it could be a sign that there might be a generational shift? I dont know. Would there be a time in the future when racism is in even more of a decline when racism is something mostly associated with old people(good old days, clinging to old ways)? (conservative folks are sometimes a few centuries late but their descendants will get there eventually.)
This being said, public condemnation and media exposure will more likely make racist people limit their expression of the racist view they have, but information about the arbitrary nature of the race meme might provide elements to realize racism is in part due to ignorance.
Go to Joe the Rancher, what ever is name is, with a black man (that has the same blood type has him) and with a white man that has incompatible blood type, and ask him if he had an accident which person should he receive blood from (before telling him which blood types they have) and then reveal that his life would be saved and that is own "white" blood (lol) is the same type as the "black" man. Make a reality tv show where racist are asked questions, like which man would he/she want as a surgeon, and of course you have a surgeon with dark skin and a plumber with lighter skin. Give them a Benjamin Moore colour strip so they can use it to gage the skin of each person they are meeting in the show (and look ridiculous in the process).
I bet you could soon change that.
http://www.rnh.com/videos.html?video=131&gallery=171
YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFULLY TAUGHT!!
How do you account for genetic differences between "races"? Sickle-cell Anaemia is much more common in people of Sub-Saharan descent than it is in people of European descent. Lactose intolerance is much more common, in groups that historically did not depend dairy products as a food source - which is less correlated with skin colour than SCD. Although skin colour has nothing to do with these types of differences, there is clearly some genetic basis for differences between groups of people that can be categorically separated into respective "races". No doubt the subject area is controversial given the historical contexts and implications of "race", but maybe that just means people need to be especially concious about what they are saying and consider how people might interpret their body of work on the subject?
You arrive at the same dilemma when discussing culture. Clearly some cultural ideas and beliefs are more consistent with seemingly objective truths about the moral treatment of others e.g. Women and men are not the same, but they are equal, and equality should be reflected in their respective rights - even if the needs to ensure equality are different. I think I'd be very hard-pressed to find a lot of people from western cultures that disagree with this - though many do abhor what they ignorantly identify as "feminism"... But beliefs that women should honour, serve, or even unquestionably obey men are certainly dominant in other cultures - and sometimes the results lead to widespread oppression and horrible treatment of women. Here I think you find the same dilemma as with race: Carelessness can lead to unfair generalizations about people instead of fair generalizations about differences.
Differences of, for example, skin colouring are real. Differences of, for example, lactose intolerance are real. However, if we examine all of the genetic differences we find that they do not fall into neat groupings that correlate with the traditional 'races'. The race concept has been configured on the basis of a small sub-set of genetic distinctions. That renders it of little value.
I live in a melting pot...of Polynesia, Pacific Islanders, Samoan's, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Caucasian, Black, very few if any Indian...Tahitians....and Hawai'ian...it's a melting pot....you meet them all...there is no "grouping" except with tourists.....*laughing*.....
We always know the tourists!
I don't think I can contend with that. Save for very specific fields of research (epidemiology), where races as "natural groups" inevitably will cede to advancements in the study of genetics. I can't think of much value in such research myself.
Edit: Started reading this article just now. Turns out that a genetic basis for race, in epidemiology, is part of an old dichotomy that's already shifted.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...594561/?page=1
Last edited by stander-j; May 12th, 2014 at 08:56 AM.
And that was 11 years ago. Haplogroups are much more useful.I don't think I can contend with that. Save for very specific fields of research (epidemiology), where races as "natural groups" inevitably will cede to advancements in the study of genetics. I can't think of much value in such research myself.
Edit: Started reading this article just now. Turns out that a genetic basis for race, in epidemiology, is part of an old dichotomy that's already shifted.
Ethnicity/race, ethics, and epidemiology.
--
And it looks like Stirling family is going to fight back. Good for them. Statements illegally recorded in the privacy of one's home as the basis for takings one's property will not be supported by the courts--and shouldn't be if we value our freedoms.
| « MH17 Shot down | Why do pages like these occur, and why would Google News run it? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
