Originally Posted by Purandara88
When Marge Schott called Eric Davis her 'million dollar ******' and then suggested that Hitler's early years in office were a boon to Germany (a historically undeniable fact), not only did it cause a HUGE media firestorm, it led directly to Major League Baseball forcing her to sell the Cincinnati Reds. The media response to Sterling's repeated and much more serious offenses has, for the most part, been silence. The only real difference? Sterling is a Jew and Schott was outspoken in her criticism of Jews.
Again, you're comparing Sterling to a much more visible person. When G. Ogden Nutting says something bad, it's just not going to get the play that it would if it came out of George Steinbrenner's mouth, instead. Schott was, from the very beginning, a very outspoken, public owner. Sterling never has been. Also, Schott provided a one-line soundbyte, which is roughly 1.6 jillion times juicier than a lawsuit over rental properties.
Your comparisons are consistently incomparable.
Also, you're assuming the situation is static. We have no idea if the story will receive more play if and when he's found guilty, and we have no idea how the NBA might react, if it reacts at all to such news.
Originally Posted by Purandara88
He has ALREADY BEEN FOUND LIABLE IN A SIMILAR CASE BEFORE! It's not an 'accusation,' it's yet another 'accusation' of behavior for which Sterling has already had to pay millions. It's part of an ongoing pattern of PROVEN discrimination.
Yes, it is an accusation. The fact that he's lost such a case before makes it pretty easy to guess whether or not there's anything to the accusation, but he's not guilty in this instance just because he was found guilty last time. They have, you know, a trial for this sort of thing.
Here's something else to keep in mind: the situations you've tried to compare Sterling's to have no layers of abstraction. They involve the owners or managers and their own public statements. The housing lawsuit came against one of Sterling's companies. It is relatively indirect compared to Schott dropping the N-bomb, or Guillen calling a reporter a "fag."
Originally Posted by Purandara88
Revisionist often, Yoda? You'll recall that my reference to Mel Gibson concerned the vastly disproportionate coverage the incident received. The least you could do is maintain a little bit of intellectual integrity and attack arguments that have actually been made...
Take a chill pill. I misspoke. My apologies. I'd like to add, however, that's it's insanely silly to think that I was trying to pull one over on you. What was I supposed to be thinking, exactly? That I could intentionally flip a statement of less than a month ago for which there is a public, easily verifiable source 2 clicks away? Come on.
In addition to all of the above, there's a freakin' war going on in the Middle East, so even if you could somehow demonstrate that discrimation against Jews is receiving more attention than other forms of discrimation, you'd still be left to demonstrate that such an emphasis is unreasonable, given that those tensions are inevitably going to be higher at times like these.