Redskins

Skybringr

Skybringr

BANNED
Banned
~I was going to leave my house, but then I thought about how I might offend someone, so I stayed home~

Ultra Liberal
 
R

resurrected

BANNED
Banned
R

rexlunae

New member
Skybringr said:
~I was going to leave my house, but then I thought about how I might offend someone, so I stayed home~

Ultra Liberal
Click to expand...

It's fascinating to me, how things break on partisan lines. Like this issue. What exactly does it have to do with the left/right divide in this country? It seems pretty clear to me, the term isn't exactly polite, and it is being used in a pretty offensive way. Why has the Right taken it up as if calling a team a racial slur is a fight for freedom itself? It seems to me that not being a jerk should be a pretty non-partisan issue, but it doesn't seem to work that way.
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
rexlunae said:
It's fascinating to me, how things break on partisan lines. Like this issue. What exactly does it have to do with the left/right divide in this country? It seems pretty clear to me, the term isn't exactly polite, and it is being used in a pretty offensive way. Why has the Right taken it up as if calling a team a racial slur is a fight for freedom itself? It seems to me that not being a jerk should be a pretty non-partisan issue, but it doesn't seem to work that way.
Click to expand...

It's an agenda push for both sides. I really don't see what all the fuss is about though. The name was/is used as a reference to the intimidating/tough breed of individuals during the expansion of (and subsequent expulsion from) the west. (its an NFL football team after all.) It's not necessarily being disparaging...just being spun to appear that way. Being too touchy-feely IMO....next issue.
 
R

resurrected

BANNED
Banned
rexlunae said:
It's fascinating to me, how things break on partisan lines. Like this issue. What exactly does it have to do with the left/right divide in this country? It seems pretty clear to me, the term isn't exactly polite, and it is being used in a pretty offensive way. Why has the Right taken it up as if calling a team a racial slur is a fight for freedom itself? It seems to me that not being a jerk should be a pretty non-partisan issue, but it doesn't seem to work that way.
Click to expand...

Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo who successfully moved a federal agency to withdraw trademark protections from the Washington Redskins because it considers the team’s name derogatory, lives on a reservation where Navajos root for the Red Mesa High School Redskins. She opposes this name; the Native Americans who picked and retain it evidently do not.




for me this isn't about freedom

it's about retards getting their way

we found out how that works out in 2008

never again!
 
tetelestai

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
According to the Washington Post (very Liberal newspaper), the names: Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne, and Kiowa apply not only to Indian tribes but also to military helicopters; not to mention the "Black Hawk" helicopter. The Washington Post claims this is offensive to Indians.

Moreover, the Washington Post is not happy with Tomahawk being the name for a missile, and the fact that "Operation Geronimo" was the name of the mission to assassinate Osama bin Laden.

The U.S. military’s ongoing slur of Native Americans
 
R

rexlunae

New member
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
rexlunae said:
It's fascinating to me, how things break on partisan lines. Like this issue. What exactly does it have to do with the left/right divide in this country? It seems pretty clear to me, the term isn't exactly polite, and it is being used in a pretty offensive way. Why has the Right taken it up as if calling a team a racial slur is a fight for freedom itself? It seems to me that not being a jerk should be a pretty non-partisan issue, but it doesn't seem to work that way.
Click to expand...

The right perceives issue like "sensitivity" or "good manners" as signs of weakness.
 
R

resurrected

BANNED
Banned
rexlunae said:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...ly-joins-fight-against-redskins-mascot-154423
Click to expand...

The mascot for at least one high school on the Navajo Nation is the Redskins.

Butler’s proposal was brought before the council in March, but it was tabled, because there were obstacles, including a generational challenge, he said. “The older generation may be desensitized to the negative impact of the racial slur. We did a lot of educating and answering their questions and so forth.
Click to expand...


thank goodness for those willing to instruct others about what they should be offended by!


thank goodness we have the likes of granite, rex and town here on tol to tell us to be offended!


:darwinsm:


:mock:retards
 
R

resurrected

BANNED
Banned
rexlunae said:
A column by George Will? The guy recently fired for writing that women claim to be sexually assaulted because of the perks of it? Yeah, he's the pinnacle of sensitivity.
Click to expand...

no, i don't believe he wrote that

here's the column that caused those easily offended to become offended:


George Will: Colleges become the victims of progressivism

June 6

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.

Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. “sexual assault.” Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”:

“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”

Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped. Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of “sexual assault” victims. It vows to excavate equities from the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones, alcohol and the faux sophistication of today’s prolonged adolescence of especially privileged young adults.

The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20 percent.

Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process. Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.

Now academia is unhappy about the Education Department’s plan for government to rate every institution’s educational product. But the professors need not worry. A department official says this assessment will be easy: “It’s like rating a blender.” Education, gadgets — what’s the difference?

Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.

It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.

What government is inflicting on colleges and universities, and what they are inflicting on themselves, diminishes their autonomy, resources, prestige and comity. Which serves them right. They have asked for this by asking for progressivism.
Click to expand...



please show me where he wrote that "women claim to be sexually assaulted because of the perks of it"


kthxbaie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top