75
4 votes
May 12, 2015

Tolerance is suppose to work both ways. Liberals have told us for years that we must tolerate other views and ways of life, even if we find them repugnant. Then why don't liberals stand up and say, although we find his views repugnant, we must tolerate them. As long as he hasn't broken the law, and it appears he hasn't they should denounce him and leave it at that. The big question is, is the NBA going to ban others who have also shown raciest tendencies? Are they going to start background check on their fans, listen to tapes of the game and ban anyone who uses a racist word? I'm betting not. Are they going banned Al Sharpton for his well known stance on Jews and gays and has in fact called anther black man the "N" word.

Isn't that far worst than what Donal Sterling said? Yet the NBA hasn't banned him. Yes, it's true Al Sharpton doesn't own a team, but if the NBA is truly making a stand against racism should they go after everyone? Or like most issues like this do the rules only apply to one side?

Personally I have found the most intolerant people are the very people who are preaching tolerance, sad but true.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
67
main reply
3 votes,
May 12, 2015

I'm curious who you think is at the heart of Sterling's ban- the liberal media? The NBA is a private organization with a commissioner, Adam Silver, and the commissioner is who banned Sterling and is gathering support from the other owners to force the sale of his team. From a business perspective this is the proper choice, because fans and advertisers are likely to revolt if it isn't taken. Also, consider the number of black players willing to sign for or be traded to a team owned by an avowed racist.

I'm a liberal, and I'm tolerant of Sterling's point of view- however, I disagree with it, and if I disagree with someone who is selling something, I won't buy it. I don't think it's cripplingly unfair to withhold giving money to someone who is wealthy.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
May 12, 2015

I don't think it's the liberal media per say, but the liberal mind set of being PC. You have many, I would go so far as to say most notice I didn't say all, liberals who say you MUST tolerate our view points, but we don't or won't tolerate your view point. It's not even that hard to find the media doing the same thing.

Remember when Clinton had "relations" with that woman. Liberals and the press were making excuses for him, and compare that to the way the press and liberals dealt with Clarence Thomas . With Clinton we had a smoking gun, he admitted to what he had done, and yet the liberals and most of the press made excuses. In the Clarence Thomas case, you had the allegations that he sexual harassed Anita Hill. There was no proof and he denied he did anything wrong. Yet the press and many liberals tried to destroy the man. Anita Hill stated she felt his conduct constituted sexual harassment or at least "behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court. How does that compare to a president sticking a cigar in someone’s private place? But who did the press and liberals go after?

Look at Prop. 8 where tolerant liberals force people from their jobs, harassed old women, protested in front of churches. Where’s the tolerance? Where’s the compassion? Again one set of rules for you and another for them. Same thing with the boy scouts. Protest and force their views on a private group.

But if the NBA is going to make a stand against racism shouldn’t they hold everyone to the same standard? Come up with a list of people known to be racist and issue them a ban. Then they can take the moral high ground. But really this is only about money, nothing more nothing less, they will ban a white owner, but do you really think they would ban a black owner who didn’t want whites around?

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: