And apparently very, very interested in letting me know that. Okay, you're literate. I hold a doctorate in the law. Now let's put away the tape and talk about things that matter.
THAT explains a LOT. And it didn't provide credibility. Quite the contrary. Why would you think a doctorate in prevarication would merit esteem? Statutory law is still the method that strengthens sin, even if it's not the Mosaic ordinances themselves.
EPIC FAIL. All caps. Bolded. Italicized. Underscored. Weird font. Large point-size. Bordered. With Graphics as a Meme.
Rather, they have meaning. How we use them illustrates our intent.
With your high-context native English language, you don't really know much about "meaning", unfortunately. All you've done is compensate with low-context culture and vocation for your high-context language without resolving the true cognitive problems. But you likely don't even know what that means.
Here's the obvious hypothetical unhorsing your advance: I teach a kid to yell the n-word. The kid has no idea what that means, but at the kindergarten the next day he begins yelling it as I've taught him. He offends a great many people. He didn't intend to, yet the offense is genuine.
Now once he realizes what he's done his intent comes into play in terms of what he does or refrains from doing next.
Apples and dump trucks. The term "redskin" has been engineered to be offensive, including coaching Native Americans to BE offended. It's a Hegelian Dialectic to produce a false consensus, etc.
Nobody is teaching people to use the term in society in any manner like your "ni**er" comparison-attempt. Any rational human would see that it's the remaining traditional name of a sports franchise that has a long tenure and named their name in a manner of honor.
Non-sequitur on your alleged "unhorsing". Fail, Counselor Comatose.
And you still haven't answered those questions. The reasonable inference is that you weren't brought up on a reservation and can pass. That would understandably impact both how you see the term and how you identify with the dominant culture or its use.
And how would you realistically project that as a truth for my heart and mind, Professor Presumptuous? I answered with a reference to my family who feels as I do, and they DO qualify for your bogus scenario.
I've never lived on a reservation personally, and I can pass for Indian or Caucasian. That's irrelevant, though I would have previously taken the time to respond directly to that if I'd thought you were actually going to make it a focal point.
Why would you demean my ethnic heritage because I don't look full-blood and live by deserved government subsistence on an assigned land portion? That's racist.
My views represent the uncoached rational Native Americans I've been associated with all my life. Most are proud of their heritage and relish the fact that no other ethnicity could be portrayed as a mascot with any honor. It's one of the few remaining tributes that could possilby compensate for the historical atrocities that are now ancient history and shouldn't be dragged into every conversation, just like blacks and slavery (though the generic term "blacks" will now draw ire).
Native Americans have been cajoled and coerced into adhering to the liberal agenda of making themselves victims and whinebags. Having pride for one's heritage should be based on attributes and accomplishments rather than skin-color.
If we must allow the inevitable encroachment of culture-sculpting in these ways, we should at least "grandfather" certain things in the process. An 80+-year-old sports franchise should get a bye. It's been the defacto precedent for almost every area of judicial law. And the name "redskin" isn't illegal or immoral anyway. In fact, it's the immoral majority who are crying about it, both liberal and conservative.
Every angry young man thinks so. Angry old men too. But words have meaning and how we craft them is a measure of that intent you were so keen on.
Actually, it's a language- and culture-based agenda to the contrary, with the intent of undermining God's Rhema by man's logos. You're complicit in that.
Never said you did. In fact, I said no one is attempting to tell you to be offended. If you aren't you aren't. Fine.
I don't need your approval either way.
Silly bit of hostile nonsense on your part, again.
Nope. The hostility is the agenda of the cultural engineers, to whom you've become subservient beyond your own ability to recognize.
Everyone has their own litmus. Mine is simpler. Who is Christ and what is that to you?
You've given me no reason to consider your "litmus test". It's irrelevant. There's only one Rhema and Logos of God, and it's not what you think or speak according to.
If the answer is your lord and savior, God incarnate who died for your sins then whatever other craziness or mistake either of us may endure or hold, we're of the Body.
Not all who say, "Lord, Lord...". I don't judge you as unsaved. So I wouldn't judge you as saved. I don't want to have double standards.
Your memory is as poor as your judgment is rash. I've done nothing of the sort and like you have no idea what you mean by other issues, which is why I suspect you lacked particular teeth on it.
I'll have to go back and look at some posts, if I think it's worth the time. But another has confirmed, so we'll see. The "lack of teeth" was because I don't wrongly accuse. That's why I qualified my statement with "If I recall...".
I'm sure that's impressive to someone with an undeclared major or concentration, but equating Henothesim with tolerance is an empty sleeve you've yet fill.
Tolerance is passively forcing others to accept standards and beliefs, including spiritual faith, of others. It's the equivalent of demanding that there are other gods; and that Christians can worship their own god and deny any others as real, but must adhere to a practice of allowing those faiths to be somehow valid.
It's a social and cultural form of Henotheism that is very literal with overlap into religious faith or lack thereof.
And, again, you're the one who seems knee deep in your own dogma here and I'm the guy who's saying your words and actions shouldn't war with one another.
What words? I'm simply advocating against the pervasive cultural engineering that is attempting to make everyone into an entitled enabled screaming victim of false accomodation for silliness.
I doubt many schools or organizations are going to adopt any such names for their mascots ever again. The ones that currently exist should be "grandfathered" with no outcry whatsoever.
This has nothing to do with MY words or actions. I'm just pointing out the subtleties of the spirit of antichrist at work in our culture and in the Body of Christ.
In the end, God made different skin colors. It shouldn't matter. The racism is in making it matter. Accomodatin a race is racism. Our culture is eaten alive with racism of the kind that is much more insidious than mascot names.
It's called privilege and entitlement, making enabled victims just because of their skin color. It's racist to cry racist, especially when racIAL isn't inherently the hate-mongering and denegration of TRUE racISM.
You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. And it's too late for the latter anyway.
Let's see how hard it is for you in the rest of this...