Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    Is that racism or a demographics discussion?
    There are a number of places where it crosses the line from demographic statistics into opinions about why the racial balance is detrimental.

    Not being the target, I can't say what is offensive or not. I can certainly see places where it is insensitive - especially when you understand that Atlanta has one of the largest affluent African American populations in the country and that seems to be dismissed in favor of blaming "too black" for driving away the people with money (white guys).

    Not the way to have the discussion.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

      Well there's a lot of stereotyping in that e-mail, not really sure if it's that much racist, outside of the overlying fact that he wants more white people and entertainment at his game to make more money.

      But I mean anyone could say that Atlanta's crowd sucked, wasn't packed, lacked energy, and didn't have a great atmosphere just from watching all the games on TV, even the playoff games, though I thought they got better this year.

      I hope this doesn't fall into the hope I get a Ballmer to buy my team for a ridiculous sum because I'm bored with the team now. It didn't sound like anyone else reported the e-mail, it was something he did on his own...just very fishy.
      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

      ----------------- Reggie Miller

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        There are a number of places where it crosses the line from demographic statistics into opinions about why the racial balance is detrimental.

        Not being the target, I can't say what is offensive or not. I can certainly see places where it is insensitive - especially when you understand that Atlanta has one of the largest affluent African American populations in the country and that seems to be dismissed in favor of blaming "too black" for driving away the people with money (white guys).

        Not the way to have the discussion.
        And, rereading the email, the racial balance stuff is purely his opinion and not supported by any independent statistics. He "notices", he "observed", etc. etc. - not the most objective way to make a determination.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          There are a number of places where it crosses the line from demographic statistics into opinions about why the racial balance is detrimental.

          Not being the target, I can't say what is offensive or not. I can certainly see places where it is insensitive - especially when you understand that Atlanta has one of the largest affluent African American populations in the country and that seems to be dismissed in favor of blaming "too black" for driving away the people with money (white guys).

          Not the way to have the discussion.
          Agreed. I think if he brought statistics into the conversation to back up his points this could have been salvageable. The fact is that all of his "evidence" was entirely perceptional, which is problematic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

            After reading his email, he's being both insensitive and truthful. The email is probably not appropriate, but it's hardly grounds for someone to be forced out like Sterling. The main color he's concerned with is green and he'd probably sell his mother for a dollar. He has probably concluded he cannot fix the problem he perceives about the Hawks and wants out.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              After reading his email, he's being both insensitive and truthful. The email is probably not appropriate, but it's hardly grounds for someone to be forced out like Sterling. The main color he's concerned with is green and he'd probably sell his mother for a dollar. He has probably concluded he cannot fix the problem he perceives about the Hawks and wants out.
              This is what I'm thinking as well. I feel bad for the owners that truly love their players, fans, and city/state. That is what's being hurt here the most are the good owners. My ultimate desire for all of this is for the Hawks to go for what they should or even less, don't go crazy and get some billion + bid for the Hawks...the Seattle people may start to get restless though, they are the ultimate wildcard, and will make teams sell for good money, sort of like LA for the NFL.
              "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

              ----------------- Reggie Miller

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                He goes off the rails towards the end especially when he gets into things like "but because of the late arriving crowd and the fact that a lot of blacks dont seem to go as crazy cheering (another one of my theories) as whites, it is not great."

                But OTOH, it doesn't seem to me that he's wearing a white hood and robe with his comments as much as he's mired in cultural stereotypes and theories on both sides of the equation.

                In fact, for anyone to make these kinds of comments and then later wonder if that makes them a racist, probably isn't a racist per se'..... Certainly not in the league of what a Donald Sterling said.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                  Levenson isn't the only owner, the Hawks are owned by the 7 (counting Levenson) member "Atlanta Spirit" group. The other 6 buying him out may be a likely outcome, maybe things were getting rocky in house, it happened with one of their owners a few years ago and they basically gave him the boot. Maybe he got pissed at the other guys and wanted to hurt the brand even if it meant he took a hit too. I dunno, just thinking out loud.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Sterling is clearly a racist. It's not really clear from this article what Levenson even said. Acknowledging differences based in fact is not wrong.

                    What if you had a fruit stand and sold apples and oranges. Let's say 90% of the people coming to your fruit stand liked apples and only 10% liked oranges. Would you stock the same number of oranges as apples and try to force feed everyone more oranges?...or would you stock a large variety and volume of apples to cater to your clientele?
                    I would try to do something to attract as many orange fans as I have apple fans. Lowering the inventory is not as "fruitful" as enlarging your customer base.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                      Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                      I would try to do something to attract as many orange fans as I have apple fans. Lowering the inventory is not as "fruitful" as enlarging your customer base.
                      Wouldn't you try to maximize profit? More orange customers don't help you if the margin is half what it is to sell an apple. Why not try to attract even more apple customers?

                      It's not really that obvious what to do...which makes running a business difficult. It depends on how much shelf space you have, how many total customers, how much margin you get on apples vs. oranges, various projections of these things, etc.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        And, rereading the email, the racial balance stuff is purely his opinion and not supported by any independent statistics. He "notices", he "observed", etc. etc. - not the most objective way to make a determination.
                        Yeah....thats the way I read a lot of this. He sees "A, B and C" then assumes that "A, B and C" are a result of "X, Y, and Z" with no real research and analysis when coming to those conclusions.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                          Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                          Agreed. I think if he brought statistics into the conversation to back up his points this could have been salvageable. The fact is that all of his "evidence" was entirely perceptional, which is problematic.
                          Do you really need stats to back up some of his statements? You can certainly visually survey a group of people and determine how balanced it is racially. When he speaks of concession sales being low, the printouts are going to bare the truth of that.

                          The choice of music is something I have noticed. Not just the arena music, but also the music used on broadcasts. Not really to my liking, but I'm an older guy. Full disclosure - Not a country fan either.

                          I just don't see where he said anything that makes me think he was being INTENTIONALLY demeaning.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                            There's really nothing in Georgia outside of Atlanta. It's not a good place to try and grow an NBA franchise. Too many old people outside of Atlanta, not interested in basketball anyways. Folks who can't afford to live in ATL or can't find a place there to live will just move elsewhere instead of settling down in a neighboring city because there really isn't much of one.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                              Woj
                              http://sports.yahoo.com/news/in-the-...213717439.html

                              In the aftermath of the Donald Sterling scandal, the dirty little secret within the NBA had played itself out in a most pronounced and predictable way: For all the public declarations of support on commissioner Adam Silver's banishment of the then Los Angeles Clippers loathsome owner, there were untold peers privately peppering Silver with misgivings on this perilous new NBA world.

                              "Adam had far less support on Sterling than anyone knows," a league source who speaks frequently with Silver told Yahoo Sports.

                              All around the league, owners started to take inventory on loose memos, audio and video remnants of speaking engagements and staff meetings. From race to gay rights to fears of camera phones getting turned on them half-cocked in bars well past midnight, there were assuredly more than a few owners dispatching high-level cleaning crews to try and retrieve and expunge past indiscretions.

                              Dallas owner Mark Cuban had come out publicly with a fear that the rest of his peers only shared privately: Are we all headed down a slippery slope with these Sterling tapes?

                              As owners issued statements decrying the racist rants of Sterling, they feared a thousand scenarios that could unfasten them of ownership, including how it's happened to Atlanta Hawks majority owner Bruce Levenson.

                              Across the past several days, several high-ranking NBA officials, including owners, flew to New York to meet with Silver and discuss how the NBA would proceed on the contents of Levenson's 2012 email, sources told Yahoo Sports.

                              So few owners and Board of Governors members had been included in the conversation, so secretive had been Silver and league executives on the identity of Levenson, that only tiny parcels of information escaped a fortified inner circle. Through the league's back-channel gossip circles, this was known: An NBA owner is in deep trouble, and as one high-ranking official told Yahoo Sports on Friday, "I'm told it's Sterling-esque in nature."

                              Fear spread rapidly, because without knowledge of Levenson's identity, more than one owner wondered: "Do they have something on me?" Other high-ranking officials in organizations wondered, "Do you know if it's my guy?" Until the NBA issued a statement – deftly buried within hours of the NFL season's start on Sunday – the league was littered with guilty consciences bracing for the worst.

                              Everyone accepts this fact: Sterling's banishment was a lifetime achievement award on racism, discrimination and a downright despicable life. For legal reasons, the NBA could never make it about anything but that deranged old man's words to his girlfriend, but everyone knew the truth. The tapes had come public, and Silver had a chance to make him go away once and for all. From a business perspective, the NBA would've struggled to function without that action – from player revolts, sponsorship withdrawals and legitimate public disgust – Silver had to make his stand.

                              The Levenson case was a far more complex issue, and Silver was spared a far more divisive fight with owners had Levenson been unwilling to simply bow out and sell his stake in the Hawks. He had no public history of racial issues, and his 2012 email to general manager Danny Ferry clumsily tried to make sense of a legitimate business issue: How could the Hawks make game-night inclusive for a diverse Atlanta population?

                              In some segments of the email, Levenson decries a racist attitude.

                              "…I think southern whites simply were not comfortable being in an arena or at a bar where they were in the minority," Levenson wrote in the email. "On fan sites I would read comments about how dangerous it is around Philips [Arena], yet in our 9 years, I don't know of a mugging or even a pick pocket incident. This was just racist garbage. When I hear some people saying the arena is in the wrong place I think it is code for there are too many blacks at the games."

                              Still, the email was an exacerbated, rambling stream of unscientific and largely uniformed spate of theories that made clearly insensitive and inappropriate assertions to make sense of why the Hawks couldn't sell tickets. Much of the email made a case for how African-American fans were more to blame for the Hawks ills than white fans, and Levenson's apology acknowledged it. Throughout the email, Levenson played into the very stereotypes of African-Americans that he claimed elsewhere to decry. Too many "blacks" on the Kiss Cam? Good lord.

                              Levenson had sent the email to Ferry, whom he had hired himself. Levenson has a close relationship with Ferry's longtime agent David Falk, and worked closely with Falk on a six-year contract that gave Ferry tremendous autonomy with the franchise.

                              The NBA and Levenson say he self-reported the email, but a high-ranking league official with direct knowledge of the probe told Yahoo Sports on Sunday that wasn't completely accurate, that the email had come back to haunt the owner within his organization.

                              "Semantics," the source called the NBA's insistence of a self-reporting scenario.

                              Silver is no liar, but he's a gifted lawyer and carefully scripted an apology and framed Levenson's ouster to make easier the decision to sell his majority share of the Hawks.

                              Once the NBA delivered its proclamation on Sunday, there were some unmistakable sighs of relief throughout the league. As one high-ranking team official texted within moments of the Levenson announcement, "It isn't my guy!" Everyone's heart stopped pounding so furiously, thrilled they had survived one more round of cuts in the roulette the post-Donald Sterling era has brought the NBA.

                              Yes, they survived the weekend, but Monday will come, and all around the NBA they'll start wondering and starting worrying again: Am I next?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team after offensive email is exposed

                                I can't imagine he'd paint himself as a racist in all the newspapers just to sell the team. I mean, just sell the team right? I suspect he knew the email was going to come out and figured this was the best chance to save face.

                                I don't know about that email, it's not the same as Sterling saying he doesn't want people of a certain pigmentation at his games. But really, he just implied the black fans of Atlanta are too poor and the white fans are too racist...maybe better to just cut and run.

                                I do wonder if this is bad in that it encourages people to just not say anything about race, ever, because the consequences of slipping up and saying the wrong thing is too high. In order for people to understand each other, you need dialogue, and not be holding the sword of domiciles over the other person's head the second they slip up.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X