Redskins

[resurrected]

That's because it doesn't bother you. I doubt the people it does feel that way about it and they're the ones actually being impacted by it

How are they "being impacted by it"?





lon?

any idea?

 

[Lon]

I'd like that. I'd like to see him take control of the destiny of his team in a positive way and in association with the Nations, so the connection could continue, if in a more uniformly agreeable and celebratory fashion. He could make everyone a winner in this.

He'd still likely have to pay for that. I'm pretty sure the Nation has name-rights (Might be why the more generic term in the first place :doh: )

Well we have a creek nearby, so I am not far...yeah, that was bad.

Wait, Creeks? I didn't think they were involved in this?
(probably worked out better than you imagined :think: ) :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

How are they "being impacted by it"?

lon?

any idea?

Similar to harrassment in the workplace: You might call all the girls 'good-looking' or 'cutie' and mean nothing by it except trying to make someone feel 'pretty' by a compliment. There have been clear cases where there was no offense intended at all nor anything sexual or harrasment were meant but the guys had to stop using the terms. I guess I understand that to a certain degree but we get too worked up and let things boil and simmer that should just be ignored most of the time.

When you are dealing with a national level like this, I suppose WA Redskins were sent a letter asking them to desist but such would require a lawsuit and so I'd assume, as Town has said, this was a suit years in the making. Some Indians would be honored if someone named themselves "Red Savages" and others, trying to distance from that would be bothered. "Red skin" doesn't by any necessity carry bloody scalps as it's only meaning. Such is remote and unknown except for researchers hunting for something. Most Indians would have never thought of "Redskins" as scalps. Indeed, the avatar used means simply "Indian" to this team (what their avatar actually is). They could have put a spear with hair and feathers hanging from it if they intended otherwise.

Kinda like : "Women sue bosses and coworkers for saying "painted ladies/painted faces" in the workplace."

 

[bybee]

Similar to harrassment in the workplace: You might call all the girls 'good-looking' or 'cutie' and mean nothing by it except trying to make someone feel 'pretty' by a compliment. There have been clear cases where there was no offense intended at all nor anything sexual or harrasment were meant but the guys had to stop using the terms. I guess I understand that to a certain degree but we get too worked up and let things boil and simmer that should just be ignored most of the time.

When you are dealing with a national level like this, I suppose WA Redskins were sent a letter asking them to desist but such would require a lawsuit and so I'd assume, as Town has said, this was a suit years in the making. Some Indians would be honored if someone named themselves "Red Savages" and others, trying to distance from that would be bothered. "Red skin" doesn't by any necessity carry bloody scalps as it's only meaning. Such is remote and unknown except for researchers hunting for something. Most Indians would have never thought of "Redskins" as scalps. Indeed, the avatar used means simply "Indian" to this team (what their avatar actually is). They could have put a spear with hair and feathers hanging from it if they intended otherwise.

Kinda like : "Women sue bosses and coworkers for saying "painted ladies/painted faces" in the workplace."

Whining, sniveling, poor me crybabies are now in control of America.
In my day we didn't run home to mama with anything short of blood!
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me."
In general, that is true. Because my freedom of speech means that, within safety constraints, I get to choose my words.
Not anymore!

 

[bybee]

He'd still likely have to pay for that. I'm pretty sure the Nation has name-rights (Might be why the more generic term in the first place :doh: )



Wait, Creeks? I didn't think they were involved in this?
(probably worked out better than you imagined :think: ) :chuckle:

And then there is The Sioux! Maybe they should sue every time someone says sue?

 

[shagster01]

Pittsburg Pirates are offensive to gay people

 

[rocketman]

The highlighted part is incorrect as far as I'm aware. The suit was brought by Native Americans.

So, if it is as you say, does this group of Native Americans speak for all Native Americans? Also if it is a group of Native Americans that are bringing the suit than why is it only liberal white people defending it? Haven't seen one Native American yet on any news source that has commented on it, one would think at this point this group would be making it's assertion public being it has gone national but, all you hear is the outcry of injustice from white liberals using this nonsense in an attempt to deflect from their current watergate-esk scandal at the IRS, which BTW is a real story of injustice against the American people.

 

[resurrected]

....all you hear is the outcry of injustice from white liberals....

i wish town could explain how the complainers are "impacted" by the use of the name

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Censoring the superflous.

Who said anything about censorship? I certainly haven't.

But what if I followed it up with "...and without" ?

Then it would be a different situation, and a different analogy; One that completely misses the point. Something can be intended as a compliment, and still be an insult.

So, if indeed you meant what you said and this is "about as much" then an Indian can take a compliment from someone 'wanting to associate' with them and long term, or they can do what they did.

And they can very much still do that, without being equated to a severed scalp.

I suppose I can see it a bit like harrassment in the workplace. If I am forced to never say "Hello Cutie" to all the women in the workplace because one thinks its sexual harrasment, I suppose I can go without saying "Cutie" anymore but it is sad, and it is censorship

Your argument here seems to be contingent on the proportion that oppose it. So Lon, what percentage of women would have to oppose your greeting before you considered abstaining from it?

Apparently you cared but were being ingenuine last post.

Until you knowingly permitted fallacious reasoning.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

And then there is The Sioux! Maybe they should sue every time someone says sue?

That's how it is pronounced..

Sioux Pronunciation guide

 

[Town Heretic]

So, if it is as you say, does this group of Native Americans speak for all Native Americans?

The groups I noted in support of the patent suit certainly speak for a good number, though I don't see that's problematic. I mean, there were blacks who fought for the Confederacy. :idunno:

Also if it is a group of Native Americans that are bringing the suit than why is it only liberal white people defending it?

A more interesting question would be why you believe that's the case. I think the even more interesting question is why so few right wingers here aren't. :think:

Haven't seen one Native American yet on any news source that has commented on it,

I posted to an article about a conclave in Washington. How much coverage have you seen of this on national tv?

one would think at this point this group would be making it's assertion public

You mean by, say, sending representatives to Washington? Because they did that.

but, all you hear is the outcry of injustice from white liberals using this nonsense in an attempt to deflect from their current watergate-esk scandal at the IRS, which BTW is a real story of injustice against the American people.

I'm not a liberal, couldn't be happier if anyone in a position of authority and power gets what's coming to them for abusing it and can't help but note that it really doesn't speak to the issue. If the Klu Klux Klan was championing antibiotics to treat infection would anyone oppose it because the Klan thought it was a good idea?

 

[Lon]

And they can very much still do that, without being equated to a severed scalp.

The Redskins do not use a spear with scalps as a moniker...

Your argument here seems to be contingent on the proportion that oppose it. So Lon, what percentage of women would have to oppose your greeting before you considered abstaining from it?

Imo? I'm not politically correct and think those people need to get a life. If someone means something derogatory, take it on a case by case basis. Do not make a blanket ruling that everybody must abide by, that's loss of freedom.

Until you knowingly permitted fallacious reasoning.

No, you came up with that all on your own. This is just an attempt to excuse it. Civility is the better rule of thumb. Speak to the issues, not to me, else it is just a complaint of having to debate with me and you are the one that entered.

 

[rocketman]

The groups I noted in support of the patent suit certainly speak for a good number, though I don't see that's problematic. I mean, there were blacks who fought for the Confederacy. :idunno:

They speak for themselves but, certainly not all being that there are Native Americans living on reservations that use the the "Redskins" namesake and are certainly not offended but, quite proud of it. The whole affair is quite petty.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/19/will...-high-school-their-redskins-mascot-is-racist/

A more interesting question would be why you believe that's the case. I think the even more interesting question is why so few right wingers here aren't. :think:

Because it is stupid, petty, and a pathetic waste of time to address it...especially since the name has stood since 1967 without so much as a peep, now all the sudden a small minority get their nose out of joint for a name that was given to show strength & honor which is usually the case with football teams...heck, if they wanted to pick a weak name they could have named them the "Washington Liberals" after all.

I posted to an article about a conclave in Washington. How much coverage have you seen of this on national tv?

Haven't seen it, no.

You mean by, say, sending representatives to Washington? Because they did that.

O.K., that is their right even if it is a minority opinion.

I'm not a liberal, couldn't be happier if anyone in a position of authority and power gets what's coming to them for abusing it and can't help but note that it really doesn't speak to the issue. If the Klu Klux Klan was championing antibiotics to treat infection would anyone oppose it because the Klan thought it was a good idea?

Liberals would...along with silencing their right to free speech while they are at it. Seems we can call the democrats in Washington the new commissars that want to limit freedom & control speech and we can just call our media Pravda being they are in collusion with them.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The Redskins do not use a spear with scalps as a moniker...

So that's what it would take?

Imo? I'm not politically correct

No one is. 'Politically correct' is an oxymoron, and an ideologically charged one at that.

If someone means something derogatory, take it on a case by case basis.

You mean a case... like a court case, and it's ruling on a particular trademark? Something along those lines?

No, you came up with that all on your own.

Is it?

My prediction: "The Fighting Irish" will be next off the list... Slippery slope fallacy. Don't care.

Again, if you don't care that your reasoning is unsound, then why should anyone else care what you think? I'm sorry if you find that 'uncivil' but that's simply the reality of the situation. If you're not going to maintain even the pretense of a reasoned argument, I'm not going to even pretend to entertain it. Only harsh rebuke is appropriate.

 

[Lon]

Again, if you don't care that your reasoning is unsound, then why should anyone else care what you think? I'm sorry if you find that 'uncivil' but that's simply the reality of the situation. If you're not going to maintain even the pretense of a reasoned argument, I'm not going to even pretend to entertain it. Only harsh rebuke is appropriate.

First off, we agree on everything to this point so congrats are in order.

As to this, I didn't see it as a fallacy at all. Not only the "Fighting Irish" but the Braves, etc. etc. Because I didnt' want to get into it with you and more specifically because that whole post was taxing my patience (not these last two, kudos), I didn't want to bother. Still don't but will if we must. I don't believe it was a fallacy, slippery slope or otherwise. Every lawsuit sets precedence. Precedence allows for more of the same. We've seen it with McDonald's coffee. It cost a bit of money to remake lids and cups that say "Caution [extremely] Hot!" Who needs it? You and I would be later taxed for that change because nothing affects a company that doesn't also affect the price for the consumer. We really need a cause/effect reality check. We really do. The accident prone that seem to be unable to think for themselves. "Coffee. Lap. BAAAAD!!!" I'm amazed Geiko hasn't actually got sued by cavemen and cavewomen yet. There are some really stupid people on the planet: Sue first, ask questions later. We need to just say "no" to stupid people. John Wayne said: "Life is tough. Its tougher for stupid people." We only need to capitulate to join them (notice none of this is addressed to you but if you are on the inside for any of this to have gotten under your skin (no pun intended), I'm unaware of the fact).

-Lon

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes, Lon, ours is mostly a "ready, fire, aim" society. Sigh.

AMR

 

[Town Heretic]

They speak for themselves but, certainly not all being that there are Native Americans living on reservations that use the the "Redskins" namesake and are certainly not offended but, quite proud of it. The whole affair is quite petty.

And there are blacks who throw the N word about with abandon. That doesn't mean some blacks and others wouldn't and shouldn't shouldn't be offended if the New York Nicks adopted it as a namesake, understanding the former is more incendiary, but illustrating the problem with trying to measure legitimacy by numbers, truth by a show of hands.

Because it is stupid, petty, and a pathetic waste of time to address it...

I think that's a peculiar thing for a white man to say to those Native Americans who find that term offensive.

especially since the name has stood since 1967 without so much as a peep,

The first suit was launched in 1972, reflecting a position that had existed prior to that patent objection. So no, you're wrong on the point.

now all the sudden a small minority get their nose out of joint for a name that was given to show strength & honor

They had cheerleaders doing war dances at one point. Seems to me it was mostly about the ferocity carried in the name and showmanship in terms of presentation. Given the historical usage was typically unflattering, if intimidating, that seems a more reasonable reading.

...heck, if they wanted to pick a weak name they could have named them the "Washington Liberals" after all.

I know that feels right to you, but the kids who were dragged out of their car, murdered and buried in Mississippi for having the temerity to suggest blacks should enjoy the same rights as whites, they were liberals. Most of those who faced dogs and clubs and hoses were. If that strikes you as weak...:idunno:

Liberals would...

Interesting, because so far the conservatives around here are the ones concentrating pretty exclusively on the messenger and spending very little to the point of consideration. Most of the objection seems to be aimed at the perception of who is in bed with the movement.

along with silencing their right to free speech while they are at it.

They don't have the right to free speech too? The patent move is mostly about raising awareness and moving the money margin. But like conservative boycotts of products and companies, it has to find agreement in the object or it won't ultimately do much of anything.

Seems we can call the democrats in Washington the new commissars that want to limit freedom & control speech and we can just call our media Pravda being they are in collusion with them.

See, this isn't about democrats or liberals or Washington. It's about a number of Native Americans being offended by a term that's been placed on a prominent team in the most popular sport, slap in the heart of American power.

 

[resurrected]

i wish town could explain how the complainers are "impacted" by the use of the name

See, this isn't about democrats or liberals or Washington. It's about a number of Native Americans being offended....

that's it?

that's how they are "impacted"? :freak:

 

[rocketman]

See, this isn't about democrats or liberals or Washington. It's about a number of Native Americans being offended by a term that's been placed on a prominent team in the most popular sport, slap in the heart of American power.

What is that number? Can you quantify that? The fact remains that the name was never picked as a slight or insult but as an image of strength, honor, and power, the minority that is turning it into a so-called insult are just that a very small minority...hopefully in the end they will lose. This is not about blacks in Mississippi, or any other great injustice which you can conjure, it is about the name of a NFL football team, try to keep it in prospective. It is also about liberals like that turd Whorehouse Harry Reed that are whipping this into a frenzy, attempting to deflect attention from real injustices like using a government agency to target average Americans...now that is injustice, so yes, it is about a bunch of white liberals in Washington politicizing this case because it suits their purpose as a national distraction from real issues.

 

[rexlunae]

What is that number? Can you quantify that? The fact remains that the name was never picked as a slight or insult but as an image of strength, honor, and power, the minority that is turning it into a so-called insult are just that a very small minority...hopefully in the end they will lose.

Intent matters. But it isn't the only thing. It might be a defense of some kind at the first instance of a slight that no insult was intended, but when the insult continues, even after a significant number of the impacted have objected, it begins to look as if you simply are indifferent to what they think, especially when you refer to them as "stupid, petty, and a pathetic waste of time".

This is not about blacks in Mississippi, or any other great injustice which you can conjure, it is about the name of a NFL football team, try to keep it in prospective.

That's a bait-and-switch response. TH didn't suggest that there was an equivalence between the name of sports teams and the murder of civil rights activists or black kids during the civil rights movement. He pointed out the silliness of your intimation that liberals are weak by means of example.

It is also about liberals like that turd Whorehouse Harry Reed that are whipping this into a frenzy, attempting to deflect attention from real injustices like using a government agency to target average Americans...now that is injustice, so yes, it is about a bunch of white liberals in Washington politicizing this case because it suits their purpose as a national distraction from real issues.

Didn't you just complain about TH allegedly blurring two issues together?