how about you rex?
can you explain how the whiners are "impacted"?
can you explain how the whiners are "impacted"?
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
Not in terms that you would understand, sadly. You've never watched your culture mown down and nearly destroyed, and then appropriated by the group doing the mowing, and I've never seen any evidence that you can place yourself on someone else's shoes.
I refer to their whine as stupid, petty and a pathetic waste of time along to being indifferent to the PC do-gooders.
TH used it a contrast in his last post so I used it to show the pettiness of this issue, being they are not even remotely linked.
I believe they are linked and I showed why. I think that it is a proper distraction from what should be a seen as real injustice but, being you are aligned with that behavior you want to dismiss it also. I wouldn't expect less from you...
you're talking about my culture that has been taken over by liberals and democrats, my culture that since my youth has welcomed perversity and abomination?
my culture which now welcomes abortion, homosexuality, divorce, adultery, pornography, "recreational" drug use, etc?
that one?
Kind of brings the great liberal achievements of our time into prospective now doesn't it?
Your culture of straight protestant white male privilege? It never was a culture on its own. There's a difference between a culture being forced to allow everyone in it to have a voice, and to make their own choices, and being forced out by a separate culture.
Oh...so they aren't stupid. Just what they do is stupid? Yeah, that's so much better.
I don't think you're being very honest here. Go back and reread it.
my ancestors from western ny were active in the progressive movements of the 1800's - abolitionists and suffragettes
they'd be rolling over in their graves if they knew how much we've "progressed" :nono:
Perhaps. I think it's more likely they'd react that way to how much you're regressed though.
By opposing full human rights for all.
Well, as I noted, it was supported by the following Native American groups: the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes. Also by the National Congress of American Indians. So more than a few/less than all, though I still don't see numbers as being meaningful here, unless the objection were unreasonable prima facie and the numbers reflected that.
Except that isn't really a fact. It's your spin. I think it's more likely the play was on the ferocity associated with the name and image, linked to a couple of generation's perception. People who grew up watching westerns were the savage redskins were something to fear.
You don't tend to honor a people by placing them in that light or having white cheerleaders do faux war dances, etc. That said, I don't think the point was to offer insult either. I don't think much thinking went into that angle one way or another.
But here's the thing: it doesn't matter. When I was a kid I came home from another kid's house and called my brother the N-word in front of my black nanny. I didn't know it was a term that caused her pain, just understood it as an insult until I saw her response to it. Taught me a valuable lesson about knowledge. Never happened again, because ignorance isn't a defense once you know.
Why? Hopefully the name that has traditionally been used to marginalize and insult people will continue to be used when there are any number of alternatives that wouldn't? Why would anyone hope for that?
That was my answer to your bizarre association with weak and liberal. That camp traditionally stands up to the empowered and numerically, fiscally stronger side. Seemed a peculiar and wrong headed description, whatever you think of their politics.
Said the fellow arguing against ideologies instead of the issue.
Unlike Limbaugh, Drudge and almost everyone with a show on the most popular news channel in the world?
That said, Reed is a doofus. But do you see what you're doing there? You're standing with your group (because the targets of that were a particular group of Americans, weren't they) because you don't care for the treatment.Good on you.
The first time you used that charge it was forgivable. Now you're just yelling "N-word" with your fingers in your ears. The issue is the issue, not who does or doesn't try to hijack it to their purpose.
Now THAT'S perspective.
By the way, why is TOL so PC with the N-word?
lain: It's not swearing, just an ugly reminder of how some people thought and think. Where's my freedom to shine a light on that? lain:perverts do not deserve human rights
they have subverted their humanity to perversion
Even if I agreed with you about who are the perverts, which obviously I don't, I would disagree about the conclusion. All people gets human rights.
And yet, you still have human rights.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
ok.
Which is why you said "Don't care", when I pointed out the fallacy?
But you already have, and if you're going to respond then give a reasoned response. If you pardon yourself from fallacious arguments, as sloppily as you have been, then my response is going to be caustic.
Then don't.
Then make a reasoned argument to that effect; "Don't care" isn't going to fly.
Again we're talking about a term and it's connotations.
Lon
Well-known member
Read back now so I don't have to tell you why again.ok.
Which is why you said "Don't care", when I pointed out the fallacy?
Cart before the horse, you were already acting that way.
I wonder if you just hit 'response' and then read. Not the best way to do internet discussion. Yes reading takes time but not that much.
Even when I do, I simply open both windows so I can read both comments at the same time and do some back log reading as well.
This particular, as I said, had to do with that initial post.
Again, I didn't want to at the time. You engaged me, not vise versa and I my patience with you was short because of your tenor. Go back and read yourself and try to be empathetic. What would you have addressed if you responded to yourself? Seriously, try it:
Did you happen to see Rocketman's link? The thread and lawsuit should be over imho. It is the proverbial nail as far as most would be concerned.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
It's no more convincing the second time.
I beg to differ, but irrelevant regardless.
I find that intriguing coming from someone who responded to say that he didn't want to respond. If you don't want to respond, then don't.
Your patronizing attitude grows weary on me.
Then again, don't.
And?
I would have never had responded "Don't care" to an accusation of a fallacy, and had I, then the criticism would have been apt.
No, but I don't see how it changes the debate. It's already understood that opinion amongst native Americans is mixed, and you've already indicated that the percentage that object to a term, doesn't matter to you.
Earlier:
| DS: 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? Lon: 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. |
It seems to me that the term in question was not originally a pejorative but merely descriptive. Similarly, black and white (based on skin color after all). Then, terrorists some 150 years past confiscated said term to spread their hate. Are we letting those terrorists of long ago win?
I applaud those American Indians who see through all the “p.c.” and stand unoffended by a descriptive moniker used for a show of strength.
I applaud those American Indians who see through all the “p.c.” and stand unoffended by a descriptive moniker used for a show of strength.
I have a really simple solution.
Washington can keep the name "Redskins".....all they have to do is change their logo from an Indian to a potato.
Washington can keep the name "Redskins".....all they have to do is change their logo from an Indian to a potato.
Balerion the Black
New member
The biggest problem with evolution is that sometimes it works in reverse.