...and not unnecessarily intrusive.
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
...and not unnecessarily intrusive.
~Lon's avatar~
:chuckle:
We used to be so free that we could own slaves.
However, in the name of compassion came the counterbalance. The same with segregation and MLK- again, in the name of compassion came action.
Those are things that meant something. There was a very real cause and drive.
But now, we are arguing over names of football teams and demanding that police use blue instead of black silhouettes. It's political correctness gone haywire, why don't you all just admit that and stop trying to sensationalize it?
:chuckle:
We used to be so free that we could own slaves.
However, in the name of compassion came the counterbalance. The same with segregation and MLK- again, in the name of compassion came action.
Those are things that meant something. There was a very real cause and drive.
But now, we are arguing over names of football teams and demanding that police use blue instead of black silhouettes. It's political correctness gone haywire, why don't you all just admit that and stop trying to sensationalize it?
I love it!:up:
Congress, and the agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing.
so basically, the majority of the voting public
Roughly.
By a white person or by a blood? Else, I'm surprised, though not completely. A majority of people, Native American and otherwise aren't offended by the term.
That's probably because it wasn't one. But what you aren't following is your own posit, because you made an issue over how long ago the team was founded and the timing of both the first formal objection and the court's response.
My answer was an illustration that it can take time. The Civil Rights landmark cases came nearly a hundred years after blacks were established uniformly as free men and citizens in this country.
I was mostly just curious as to how negatively you'd been impacted, how likely you were to be in a position to speak to that. To me the issue is as simple as Merriam Webster meets the people of Native American blood who are understandably offended. Many aren't. I can understand that too, having invested a very different approach to the word for most of my life.
But the word has been too closely and too often linked to marginalizing, stereotyping and insulting people like you, to the point where it's reasonable to object to it and be offended by it, even if that response isn't uniform. So it's time to find a new word for a storied representative of our actual national pastime.
in new york state?
that would be 1799
so why in the name of all that's holy does a mildly intelligent person such as yourself argue so forcefully for an accomodation of the whiny minority?
maybe for your evil ancestors
You say that as if the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't.
The foundations of democracy are older and deeper in this country than republicanism. So is the tradition of the rule of law. That's why we have a constitutional, democratic republic. Constitutional because we have a Constitution that establishes the powers of government and protects rights, democratic because we vote for our governance, and republic because we have no hereditary offices nor king.
Last edited:
Right. And it isn't as though our founders had a profound respect for the average citizen's ability to decide fundamental issues of right. They made it neigh unto impossible for their considerations on those points to be uprooted, kept power in the hands of a narrow, landed gentry and then did their best to give the minorities recourse and equality before the law, if not in political empowerment.
That's very true. And unfortunate, in some cases. But then, there are many cases where an unpopular right is defended by little more than the Constitution and courts that are diligent to their duties.
I was horrified at a young age by pictures of posses lynching someone because someone decided they were guilty. I saw films of KKK'ers tarring and feathering a black man and threatening to do the same to a white man who tried to come to the black man's defense.
These pictures are indelibly imprinted on my soul.
Mob rule and anarchy destroy society.
If we wish to live in society then we must have reasonable laws upon which all can rely with surety of equality of application.
The government was never supposed to be a sentient entity. It was supposed to just be a machine.
The initial plan of the US wasn't even for John Q Public to vote for the Presidency, because John Q Public wasn't supposed to be affected by government. They were comfortable with electing officials close within their circles to vote, because there was no option of usurping or exploiting John Q Public.
You know all that stuff you hear about libertarianism and all those super conservative notions?
Well, there it is, the oldest of the oldest of ideals of this country. The foundation, really.
Government shouldn't even be doing what it does, let alone testing the waters of the Constitution.
Want my opinion? Liberarianism or Church State. Apple or orange, because what we're doing now is murdering this country.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Your defense for what was ostensibly a bad argument was "Meh". Literally that's your defense. This tells me that not only do you not care about my opinion, you don't seem to care about yours either.
Red herring.
What they were 'shooting' for is immaterial.
"Redskins" are about as much of a compliment to American Indians, as "You look pretty when you're wearing make-up" is to women.
You've knowingly and purposely used fallacious reasoning. If that doesn't bother you, then why should anyone care what you think?
I'm not talking about a lawsuit. I'm talking about what connotations a particular term has.
who gets to decide that?
the guy using the term or the guy feigning offense over its use?