Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Slate, New Republic and Mother Jones refuse to print "Redskins." "If we're feeling sassy we'll call them 'The Washington [Redacted]'"   (nationalreview.com ) divider line 163
    More: Stupid, Redskins, Mother Jones, Colgate University  
•       •       •

534 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Aug 2013 at 9:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-08-13 07:27:21 AM  
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-13 08:34:53 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


Yes, there are plenty of whites who like to see themselves as the defenders of the downtrodden, but it could just be that they are the ones with most of the magazines and web-sites.

I can imagine how black people would like it is some team called themselves the "black-skins".
 
2013-08-13 08:39:45 AM  
The Washington RG3s
 
2013-08-13 08:54:52 AM  
Hand-wringing aside, the Slate piece was actually well-written and reasoned.  TL;DR version: Is "Redskins" that bad?  No.  Is it completely tacky?  Yes.  Would a new team in the last 20-30 years have ever called themselves "Redskins?"  Hell no.

But now it is a political issue, and that means that the heels are dug in permanently.  The "change it" people are too outraged and the "keep it" people are too protective from "PC gone wild."
 
2013-08-13 09:00:31 AM  
 
2013-08-13 09:08:20 AM  
i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."
 
2013-08-13 09:10:22 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


I think so.  I do think Native Americans have a problem with the name but I haven't really looked into it...

But that does remind me of a CSB - One of my good friends is Chinese (Cantonese, came here in her mid 20s).  I remember one day when she used the word "Oriental".  I told her that some people here in America get offended over that.  She was floored as to why and then commented that they were probably ABCs or white people.
 
2013-08-13 09:16:37 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


It's just you.
 
2013-08-13 09:20:26 AM  

factoryconnection: The "change it" people are too outraged and the "keep it" people are too protective from "PC gone wild."


It's weird that people take such a strong sense to keep using that word, knowing its history.  I can understand indifference, but not the heels-dug-in, you'll-pry-that-word-and-my-feral-pig-from-my-cold-dead-hands insistence on wanting to keep it.

And yes, there's no way a new team would ever use a term 1/10th as offensive.

I liked the suggestion of the "Washington Pigskins".  The pig is their unofficial mascot anyway, it keeps the flow of the name, and it incorporates old-school football slang.
 
2013-08-13 09:24:29 AM  
"Hey guys. Bleeding heart liberals are being all bleeding heart so lets make ourselves look like racist morons instead of just shutting up."
 
2013-08-13 09:25:59 AM  

UberDave: cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?

I think so.  I do think Native Americans have a problem with the name but I haven't really looked into it...


They pursued a lawsuit all the way to the honkeys on the Supreme Court, who turned it down. The Trademark Office had determined that the term was offensive, but the district and appeals courts reversed, saying that the native americans had waited too long and should've filed suit back in 1930 when they had so much political power and ability, rather than now.
 
2013-08-13 09:26:04 AM  
Washington Bureaucrats.

/that way they'll always win...the bureaucrats always win
 
2013-08-13 09:28:15 AM  
The Washington Redskins is now a liberal/conservative thing.  Stick it to the libs by cheering for a bad football team in Washington.

American Political Discourse:  2013.
 
2013-08-13 09:28:43 AM  

chimp_ninja: And yes, there's no way a new team would ever use a term 1/10th as offensive.


Of course, no one is publicly freaking out about the UNCF or NAACP to change their names, although both organizations are now just basically a "I dare you to speak the full name of this organization on air, white newscaster" at this point.  "Redskins" is said with regularity and aplomb with regards to football on air and in print.
 
2013-08-13 09:28:52 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


Sounds to me like the Marketplace of Ideas has one they'd like to share with the rest of us. If Slate, et al want to look like ninnies, that's on them - and if Dan Snyder wants to bullheadedly keep a team name that rapidly falls out of use (and is increasingly seen as offensive), that's on him.

// multimillion-dollar-media-conglomerate fight!
 
2013-08-13 09:29:36 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Washington Bureaucrats.

/that way they'll always win...the bureaucrats always win


Washington Redtapes?
 
2013-08-13 09:29:51 AM  
Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-13 09:30:13 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-13 09:35:30 AM  

js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things


Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.
 
2013-08-13 09:35:32 AM  

FlashHarry: i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."


I grew up on a reservation and was unaware for years that I was supposed to be offended by the term "redskin"

It still doesn't bother me one bit.
 
2013-08-13 09:36:24 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


fark their white savior guilt complex.
 
2013-08-13 09:37:59 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Washington Bureaucrats.

/that way they'll always win...the bureaucrats always win


You bet your sweet black ass we do.
 
2013-08-13 09:42:09 AM  
Up next:
t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-13 09:43:04 AM  

meanmutton: js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things

Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.


Slate's NFL writing is pretty good.  I'll take Stefan Fatsis over Skip Bayless any day.
 
2013-08-13 09:43:53 AM  
I hope they do Notre Dame next.
 
2013-08-13 09:45:15 AM  
No DC sports fan wants the name to change because of how badly they farked that up with the Bullets.
 
2013-08-13 09:45:28 AM  

Rapmaster2000: meanmutton: js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things

Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.

Slate's NFL writing is pretty good.  I'll take Stefan Fatsis over Skip Bayless any day.


Sorry being better than Skip Bayless doesn't get you to pretty good. There's plenty of pretty good NFL writing out there...it isn't a choice of Slate v. Skip Bayless.
 
2013-08-13 09:46:13 AM  
Just wait until the people in Mumbai and Delhi hear what Cleveland calls its rounders team.
 
2013-08-13 09:47:19 AM  
I hate political correctness and I think using a name like Sioux, Seminoles, Blackhawks is fine but there is simply no way you can say Redskins is not a racial slur and there is no way the team would be named that today
 
2013-08-13 09:47:32 AM  

js34603: I hope they do Notre Dame next.


The irish are so oppressed and marginalized these days
 
2013-08-13 09:48:02 AM  

Rapmaster2000: meanmutton: js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things

Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.

Slate's NFL writing is pretty good.  I'll take Stefan Fatsis over Skip Bayless any day.


Screw it, most of Slate's writing is pretty good.  I certainly hold differing political views than are common on the website but it's nice to see well written, well thought out, intelligent analysis of politics, culture, and economics from people holding a different perspective than me.  Plus, there's Amanda Marcotte, who has no doubt become the world's most successful Internet troll.  No sarcasm -- she's farking brilliant at it.
 
2013-08-13 09:49:34 AM  

js34603: Rapmaster2000: meanmutton: js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things

Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.

Slate's NFL writing is pretty good.  I'll take Stefan Fatsis over Skip Bayless any day.

Sorry being better than Skip Bayless doesn't get you to pretty good. There's plenty of pretty good NFL writing out there...it isn't a choice of Slate v. Skip Bayless.


I realize it's an extreme example, but ESPN is Skip Bayless now.  It's all screaming garbage for mooks and meatheads.  What sportswriters do you like?
 
2013-08-13 09:50:23 AM  

factoryconnection: TheShavingofOccam123: Washington Bureaucrats.

/that way they'll always win...the bureaucrats always win

Washington Redtapes?


Jello Biafra suggested the Washington Bribes.  (see "Mascot-Mania")
 
2013-08-13 09:50:34 AM  

Hang On Voltaire: I hate political correctness and I think using a name like Sioux, Seminoles, Blackhawks is fine but there is simply no way you can say Redskins is not a racial slur and there is no way the team would be named that today


To me, there are two groups which are profoundly racist: The Redskins and the Cleveland Indians.  There's no way that anyone can look at this logo and think it's NOT racist --

mlbreports.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-13 09:51:39 AM  

meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: meanmutton: js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things

Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.

Slate's NFL writing is pretty good.  I'll take Stefan Fatsis over Skip Bayless any day.

Screw it, most of Slate's writing is pretty good.  I certainly hold differing political views than are common on the website but it's nice to see well written, well thought out, intelligent analysis of politics, culture, and economics from people holding a different perspective than me.  Plus, there's Amanda Marcotte, who has no doubt become the world's most successful Internet troll.  No sarcasm -- she's farking brilliant at it.


Troy Patterson is the greatest troll over there.  "Fireworks Suck" was beautiful and so flat out intentional:  http://www.slate.com/articles/life/a_fine_whine/2009/07/fireworks_suc k .html

As far as non-trolls on Slate go, I like Seth Stevenson so much that I bought his book.  His travel writing is very entertaining.
 
2013-08-13 09:52:22 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


That may be because we have done a pretty good job of making sure those who would actually be offended have zero voice.

/honestly thinks every home crowd should chant "racist nickname" whenever the Redskins come to town.
 
2013-08-13 09:54:09 AM  
The other thing to consider is that while the name may be mildly offensive to some, it's actually a kind of compliment.

In the United States, we generally name football teams after people and animals that we deem to have great courage and fighting ability.  There are some local exceptions, of course, but you don't see the opposite.  There is no team called the "North Dakota Milquetoasts" or the "Wyoming Possums".
 
2013-08-13 09:55:06 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: TheShavingofOccam123: Washington Bureaucrats.

/that way they'll always win...the bureaucrats always win

You bet your sweet black ass we do.


Why's it always got to be my sweet black ass?
 
2013-08-13 09:56:58 AM  

Trapper439: Just wait until the people in Mumbai and Delhi hear what Cleveland calls its rounders team.


They probably won't give a crap, since unlike "Redskins" there is nothing inherently offensive about "Indians." Or Braves, or Warriors, or Seminoles, or Illini, etc.
 
2013-08-13 10:00:36 AM  
You want to talk about racist nicknames? What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? How dare Notre Dame insinuate that every Irishman is a lush who can't stop himself from getting uncontrollably piss-my-pants drunk and starting gigantic brawls?
 
2013-08-13 10:01:31 AM  

Willas Tyrell: Trapper439: Just wait until the people in Mumbai and Delhi hear what Cleveland calls its rounders team.

They probably won't give a crap, since unlike "Redskins" there is nothing inherently offensive about "Indians." Or Braves, or Warriors, or Seminoles, or Illini, etc.


Actually, someone (white) told me (mi wuk) that I should be offended by "Indian" because I'm not from India. I just can't work up the rage.
 
2013-08-13 10:01:34 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Report: Redskins' Name Only Offensive If You Think About What It Means

Wagner recommended that the NFL franchise should change their name to something more appropriate and historically accurate, such as the Washington Racist farks.


Oh, man, I wish this would get some traction. Lulz all around
 
2013-08-13 10:01:48 AM  

dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that while the name may be mildly offensive to some, it's actually a kind of compliment.

In the United States, we generally name football teams after people and animals that we deem to have great courage and fighting ability.  There are some local exceptions, of course, but you don't see the opposite.  There is no team called the "North Dakota Milquetoasts" or the "Wyoming Possums".


It's not the fact that they named themselves after Native Americans.  It's the fact that they used a racial slur to do it.
 
2013-08-13 10:02:50 AM  
i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-13 10:10:58 AM  

Serious Black: You want to talk about racist nicknames? What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? How dare Notre Dame insinuate that every Irishman is a lush who can't stop himself from getting uncontrollably piss-my-pants drunk and starting gigantic brawls?


If the nickname was "The Irish", the implication would be that all from the Emerald Isle are bearded, diminutive, and punch-happy. The addition of the adjective, to me, suggests that the name is meant to evoke a subset of Irish - those that do like to fight.

If the DC team was named "The Fighting Redskins" it'd still be offensive because the term "redskin" is.

// sure, colloquially everyone calls them "the Irish", but that's hardly the same
 
2013-08-13 10:11:19 AM  

Spade: cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?

fark their white savior guilt complex.


I've never understood the minority approach to white guilt. Is it better to have a person not like you because of your color or to have a white person defend you because they feel you are not capable (isn't that insidiously more racist)? Maybe it's the 'enemy of my enemy' deal.

Meh, Redsdkins, Schmedskins...it's just a word. Grow up people.
 
2013-08-13 10:16:58 AM  
Most valuable sports franchises in the world (slideshowy):

1)  Manchester United
2) Real Madrid
3) New York Yankees
4) Dallas Cowboys
5)  Washington Redskins

Ferrari?  Ranked 15th.

So, I doubt they're going to throw away the 5th most valuable sports brand *in the world* because of some web page butthurt.

Don't like the Skins?  Root for the Cowboys.  Nobody promised you a world where you wouldn't be "offended".
 
2013-08-13 10:18:04 AM  

factoryconnection: chimp_ninja: And yes, there's no way a new team would ever use a term 1/10th as offensive.

Of course, no one is publicly freaking out about the UNCF or NAACP to change their names, although both organizations are now just basically a "I dare you to speak the full name of this organization on air, white newscaster" at this point.  "Redskins" is said with regularity and aplomb with regards to football on air and in print.



Neither "Negro" or "Colored People" were slurs at the time of their incorporation into those organizations' names.
"Redskins" was a slur at the time the team was formed.
 
2013-08-13 10:19:26 AM  
Neither "Negro" or "Colored People" were slurs at the time of their incorporation into those organizations' names.
"Redskins" was a slur at the time the team was formed.



So, it's a successful example of "taking the word away from racists"?

Win?
 
2013-08-13 10:20:26 AM  
The way racial slurs against native americans and other first peoples are tolerated and even celebrated is f*cking pathetic. We really should all be better than this.
 
2013-08-13 10:21:56 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: Neither "Negro" or "Colored People" were slurs at the time of their incorporation into those organizations' names.
"Redskins" was a slur at the time the team was formed.


Good point.  However it would be good for a laugh to see a newscaster get through "National Association for the Advancement of Col...um...ored People today met in Omaha..."
 
2013-08-13 10:23:14 AM  
Fighting Irish is still ok, right?

The NCAA wants the University of North Dakota Fighting Souix to change their name, even though the Souix tribe doesn't give a crap
 
2013-08-13 10:28:54 AM  

machoprogrammer: Fighting Irish is still ok, right?

The NCAA wants the University of North Dakota Fighting Souix to change their name, even though the Souix tribe doesn't give a crap


Trust me. Most tribes don't give a crap.
 
2013-08-13 10:33:00 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


I have noticed that the people who biatch the loudest about "political correctness" tend to be universally white.
 
2013-08-13 10:34:24 AM  

crotchgrabber: machoprogrammer: Fighting Irish is still ok, right?

The NCAA wants the University of North Dakota Fighting Souix to change their name, even though the Souix tribe doesn't give a crap

Trust me. Most tribes don't give a crap.


Or are honored by remembrance of their history, see also the Fighting Illini
 
2013-08-13 10:35:25 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: "Redskins" was a slur at the time the team was formed.


Chosen specifically because the owner (GP Marshall) was a gigantic racist. It's no accident that the Skins were the last team to integrate.
 
2013-08-13 10:43:16 AM  
GRCooper: Neither "Negro" or "Colored People" were slurs at the time of their incorporation into those organizations' names.
 "Redskins" was a slur at the time the team was formed.

So, it's a successful example of "taking the word away from racists"?
Win?


Honestly? it has almost reached that point. Native Americans have become so marginalized or assimilated that the word hasn't been "needed" by the bigots.

But not yet. You could get away with referring to your buddy from the UK as "My limey bastard friend", and no one would care because the sting has been wholly taken out of the old slur via pop culture adoption. Redskin still hasn't quite reached that point yet. It's just sitting out there.
 
2013-08-13 10:43:26 AM  

Hang On Voltaire: I hate political correctness and I think using a name like Sioux, Seminoles, Blackhawks is fine but there is simply no way you can say Redskins is not a racial slur and there is no way the team would be named that today


I tend to agree.  I think it's possible to use a specific tribe as a mascot, if that tribe had historical roots in the area AND it's treated with due respect.  But "Redskins" and "Indians" are just not justifiable.
 
2013-08-13 10:46:10 AM  

dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that while the name may be mildly offensive to some, it's actually a kind of compliment.

In the United States, we generally name football teams after people and animals that we deem to have great courage and fighting ability.  There are some local exceptions, of course, but you don't see the opposite.  There is no team called the "North Dakota Milquetoasts" or the "Wyoming Possums".


Ohio State Buckeyes, U-C San Diego Banana Slugs, Arizona/St. Louis Cardinals, Red/White Sox, Anaheim Ducks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Chicago Cubs, Baltimore Orioles, Detroit Lions

/The Detroit Lions are so lacking in "great courage and fighting ability" that it has forever tarnished the reputation of actual lions.
 
2013-08-13 10:47:49 AM  

GRCooper: Most valuable sports franchises in the world (slideshowy):

1)  Manchester United
2) Real Madrid
3) New York Yankees
4) Dallas Cowboys
5)  Washington Redskins

Ferrari?  Ranked 15th.

So, I doubt they're going to throw away the 5th most valuable sports brand *in the world* because of some web page butthurt.

Don't like the Skins?  Root for the Cowboys.  Nobody promised you a world where you wouldn't be "offended".


Wait, there's an NFL rule that says you have to give away a team for free if you change its name?
 
2013-08-13 10:48:18 AM  

TheZorker: crotchgrabber: machoprogrammer: Fighting Irish is still ok, right?

The NCAA wants the University of North Dakota Fighting Souix to change their name, even though the Souix tribe doesn't give a crap

Trust me. Most tribes don't give a crap.

Or are honored by remembrance of their history, see also the Fighting Illini


This always seemed weird to me. Being honored because the descendants of the people who displaced or killed your ancestors named their local sports team after you?
It would be like if the NFL had a German expansion team that called itself the Berlin Jews.

But crotchgrabber is correct, 90% of Native Americans polled a few years back didn't care.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_commu ni cation/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
 
2013-08-13 10:50:42 AM  
This headline is giving me a hankerin' for some pancakes...
 
2013-08-13 10:52:06 AM  
This is news because it's NEW.   At least one state has banned the printing of the word (by law IIRC).  Washington I'm looking at you.   Of course that's been the case for years so it's not news.
 
2013-08-13 10:53:46 AM  

meanmutton: GRCooper: Most valuable sports franchises in the world (slideshowy):

1)  Manchester United
2) Real Madrid
3) New York Yankees
4) Dallas Cowboys
5)  Washington Redskins

Ferrari?  Ranked 15th.

So, I doubt they're going to throw away the 5th most valuable sports brand *in the world* because of some web page butthurt.

Don't like the Skins?  Root for the Cowboys.  Nobody promised you a world where you wouldn't be "offended".

Wait, there's an NFL rule that says you have to give away a team for free if you change its name?


No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.
 
2013-08-13 10:58:14 AM  

dittybopper: it's actually a kind of compliment.


No.
 
2013-08-13 11:01:58 AM  

meanmutton: dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that while the name may be mildly offensive to some, it's actually a kind of compliment.

In the United States, we generally name football teams after people and animals that we deem to have great courage and fighting ability.  There are some local exceptions, of course, but you don't see the opposite.  There is no team called the "North Dakota Milquetoasts" or the "Wyoming Possums".

Ohio State Buckeyes, U-C San Diego Banana Slugs, Arizona/St. Louis Cardinals, Red/White Sox, Anaheim Ducks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Chicago Cubs, Baltimore Orioles, Detroit Lions

/The Detroit Lions are so lacking in "great courage and fighting ability" that it has forever tarnished the reputation of actual lions.


Banana slugs are UC Santa Cruz.

You have insulted my people.
 
2013-08-13 11:20:39 AM  

GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.


The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?
 
2013-08-13 11:27:54 AM  
A)  I understand not caring much about the name.  I completely do not understand strongly opposing a name change.  Unless you're a huge fan with a tattoo of the team logo or something, it just doesn't make sense and reeks of "sticking it to the libs."

B)  If you use the phrase "white guilt," you're an asshole.  White people don't feel guilty.  Or bad.  We feel awesome!  We're white!  Everything is better for us!
 
2013-08-13 11:28:08 AM  

Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?


Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?
 
2013-08-13 11:29:37 AM  
Well the blogs that wont call the Redskins by name (and which barely mention sports at all unless they can do it in a divisive political fashion that makes somebody somewhere unhappy) will still do a better job of covering the Redskins this season than ESPN will
 
2013-08-13 11:30:47 AM  
Washington R-tards
 
2013-08-13 11:30:49 AM  
Why not rename them "The Washington Rhinos?" It's a big, tough animal and there's a playful political connotation as well.
 
2013-08-13 11:36:04 AM  

vpb: cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?

Yes, there are plenty of whites who like to see themselves as the defenders of the downtrodden, but it could just be that they are the ones with most of the magazines and web-sites.

I can imagine how black people would like it is some team called themselves the "black-skins".


www.bluecorncomics.com
 
2013-08-13 11:38:29 AM  
So three non-sports blogs are going to take a stand that nobody will remember next week, while taking this week to loudly pat themselves on the back for doing so.

Good show, guys.
 
2013-08-13 11:40:38 AM  
Yeah, but are they referring to [redacted] as womyn? Because if not, they're just mere tools of The Patriarchy.
 
2013-08-13 11:44:29 AM  
I've said for a few weeks now -- just as i said with Imus' "nappy headed hos" dustup - the media's double standard on ethnic slurs is laughable.  Imus got fired, Riley Cooper is a pariah, yet the same folks calling for their heads on platters have no quarrel with "Redskin".

i'm a native american and i don'thave a problem with some names. i think it is cool as shiat that the Army, for example, named its rotary winged assault craft things like "Kiowa", "Apache", "Chinook", etc.  i don't have a problem with atlanta braves (the mascot is another thing, though) or the celevaland indians.  but, there is a line, as with many things, and it is just unconscionable that the pro team from washington has this name.

and before we start in with the "don't you guys have better things to worry about, like alcoholism, literacy, blah blah blah", every issue has its time.  and more to the point, that i am indian does not mean that i am stuck in that cycle of destructive behavior.  some indians have things called "degrees" and make $125K a year.  shocking, innit?
 
2013-08-13 11:45:14 AM  
I can understand being upset about Redskins and, to a much lesser extent, the Indians. What I don't get is people getting butthurt about Warriors. It's not exclusive to Native Americans by any stretch of the imagination.

As someone who is Irish, I am more offended by people who are offended by the Fighting Irish or the Celtics, even though a joo drew the caricature. I'm more proud of the Irish being thick skinned enough to not worry about stupid shiat like that.
 
2013-08-13 11:48:01 AM  

chimp_ninja: factoryconnection: The "change it" people are too outraged and the "keep it" people are too protective from "PC gone wild."

It's weird that people take such a strong sense to keep using that word, knowing its history.  I can understand indifference, but not the heels-dug-in, you'll-pry-that-word-and-my-feral-pig-from-my-cold-dead-hands insistence on wanting to keep it.

And yes, there's no way a new team would ever use a term 1/10th as offensive.

I liked the suggestion of the "Washington Pigskins".  The pig is their unofficial mascot anyway, it keeps the flow of the name, and it incorporates old-school football slang.


With the Hawgs, this is perfect.

I'm waiting for Goodell to go full asshole and get a court order prohibit the redacting of the Washington Football name. If you don't use R-E-D-S-K-I-N-S you can't report on the NFL.
 
2013-08-13 11:48:07 AM  
The answer is Slate, New Republic, and Mother Jones.

What are 3 "news" outlets nobody cares about?

Correct!
 
2013-08-13 11:48:45 AM  

Crewmannumber6: I can understand being upset about Redskins and, to a much lesser extent, the Indians. What I don't get is people getting butthurt about Warriors. It's not exclusive to Native Americans by any stretch of the imagination.

As someone who is Irish, I am more offended by people who are offended by the Fighting Irish or the Celtics, even though a joo drew the caricature. I'm more proud of the Irish being thick skinned enough to not worry about stupid shiat like that.


Well, let's be honest.  Like 150 million other Americans, you're "Irish" not Irish.  I'm "Irish" too.
 
2013-08-13 11:51:17 AM  
 
2013-08-13 11:51:52 AM  

rickythepenguin: I've said for a few weeks now -- just as i said with Imus' "nappy headed hos" dustup - the media's double standard on ethnic slurs is laughable.  Imus got fired, Riley Cooper is a pariah, yet the same folks calling for their heads on platters have no quarrel with "Redskin".

i'm a native american and i don'thave a problem with some names. i think it is cool as shiat that the Army, for example, named its rotary winged assault craft things like "Kiowa", "Apache", "Chinook", etc.  i don't have a problem with atlanta braves (the mascot is another thing, though) or the celevaland indians.  but, there is a line, as with many things, and it is just unconscionable that the pro team from washington has this name.

and before we start in with the "don't you guys have better things to worry about, like alcoholism, literacy, blah blah blah", every issue has its time.  and more to the point, that i am indian does not mean that i am stuck in that cycle of destructive behavior.  some indians have things called "degrees" and make $125K a year.  shocking, innit?


Did you need any more information about Berkeley?
 
2013-08-13 11:52:41 AM  
There were several good suggestions in a thread a while back asking people to Photoshop a new logo/team name.
 
2013-08-13 11:55:40 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Crewmannumber6: I can understand being upset about Redskins and, to a much lesser extent, the Indians. What I don't get is people getting butthurt about Warriors. It's not exclusive to Native Americans by any stretch of the imagination.

As someone who is Irish, I am more offended by people who are offended by the Fighting Irish or the Celtics, even though a joo drew the caricature. I'm more proud of the Irish being thick skinned enough to not worry about stupid shiat like that.

Well, let's be honest.  Like 150 million other Americans, you're "Irish" not Irish.  I'm "Irish" too.


Actually I was born in Dublin, but let's not split hairs
 
2013-08-13 11:56:15 AM  

netweavr: Did you need any more information about Berkeley?



no, sorry i never responded.  still have the email, it was helpful.  the BART strike injunction is helpful too.
 
2013-08-13 11:57:23 AM  
It's like and old man yelling at a cloud
 
2013-08-13 11:58:52 AM  

Crewmannumber6: Rapmaster2000: Crewmannumber6: I can understand being upset about Redskins and, to a much lesser extent, the Indians. What I don't get is people getting butthurt about Warriors. It's not exclusive to Native Americans by any stretch of the imagination.

As someone who is Irish, I am more offended by people who are offended by the Fighting Irish or the Celtics, even though a joo drew the caricature. I'm more proud of the Irish being thick skinned enough to not worry about stupid shiat like that.

Well, let's be honest.  Like 150 million other Americans, you're "Irish" not Irish.  I'm "Irish" too.

Actually I was born in Dublin, but let's not split hairs


From one drunken Irish wifebeater to another:
cl.jroo.me
Cheers!
 
2013-08-13 12:00:14 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?


Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.
 
2013-08-13 12:02:14 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Crewmannumber6: I can understand being upset about Redskins and, to a much lesser extent, the Indians. What I don't get is people getting butthurt about Warriors. It's not exclusive to Native Americans by any stretch of the imagination.

As someone who is Irish, I am more offended by people who are offended by the Fighting Irish or the Celtics, even though a joo drew the caricature. I'm more proud of the Irish being thick skinned enough to not worry about stupid shiat like that.

Well, let's be honest.  Like 150 million other Americans, you're "Irish" not Irish.  I'm "Irish" too.


Instead of being an Ire, you're just Ire-ish?
 
2013-08-13 12:03:59 PM  

Crewmannumber6: Actually I was born in Dublin, but let's not split hairs


Ya jackeen bastard.  C'mere sham, let me tell ye a question: how'd you like a funt in the shandons?  Stall the beans, there's a langerload of steamers here.  What's my name?  Goby.  Goby FOOKED, ya coont.
 
2013-08-13 12:05:04 PM  

cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?


You are right.  All those Native Americans in the government and the media should be speaking up, right?  Oh, there aren't any?

"Whens the last time you met two Indians?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdQg7jTXUt8
 
2013-08-13 12:06:00 PM  

Theaetetus: Rapmaster2000: Crewmannumber6: I can understand being upset about Redskins and, to a much lesser extent, the Indians. What I don't get is people getting butthurt about Warriors. It's not exclusive to Native Americans by any stretch of the imagination.

As someone who is Irish, I am more offended by people who are offended by the Fighting Irish or the Celtics, even though a joo drew the caricature. I'm more proud of the Irish being thick skinned enough to not worry about stupid shiat like that.

Well, let's be honest.  Like 150 million other Americans, you're "Irish" not Irish.  I'm "Irish" too.

Instead of being an Ire, you're just Ire-ish?


a.espncdn.com
Like most Irish, I live in suburban Chicago and my last name is Wolarski.
 
2013-08-13 12:06:34 PM  

Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?

Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.


I like how you don't address the salient point - that Redskin being a racial slur is entirely subjective.

File suit if you think you have a case
 
2013-08-13 12:14:34 PM  

Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Co ns titution

Yes.
 
2013-08-13 12:18:48 PM  
I can imagine how black people would like it is some team called themselves the "black-skins".


Yeah! it would be as insulting as calling an African American "black"?

dumbass
 
2013-08-13 12:19:00 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?

Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.

I like how you don't address the salient point - that Redskin being a racial slur is entirely subjective.


I did address the salient point, with a direct quotation from the statute. I like how you ignored that and made yourself look like an idiot.

File suit if you think you have a case

The suit has already been filed and won on exactly those grounds. As noted above, it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits. So, yeah, you're wrong.
 
2013-08-13 12:20:19 PM  

flak attack: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Co ns titution

Yes.


Commercial speech is subject to restrictions. For example, first amendment notwithstanding, you cannot make fraudulent advertisements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Co ns titution#Commercial_speech
 
2013-08-13 12:29:38 PM  

Theaetetus: As noted above, it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits.


hard to believe that the DC Circuit Court Of Appeals would rule in favor of the local franchise....

and the indians picked a dumb set of facts to base that lawsuit on.  YEAH LETS PICK THE GUY THAT ABANDONED HIS CASE FOR ABOUT A DECADE, THAT'S GONNA BE SMART.

i forget if it was laches or some other flavor of estoppel that hte DC Circuit cited, but yeah, that was it.  you waited too long nad that delay hurt the franchise's ability to defend.
 
2013-08-13 12:31:05 PM  

Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?

Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.

I like how you don't address the salient point - that Redskin being a racial slur is entirely subjective.

I did address the salient point, with a direct quotation from the statute. I like how you ignored that and made yourself look like an idiot.

File suit if you think you have a case

The suit has already been filed and won on exactly those grounds. As noted above, it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits. So, yeah, you're wrong.


No, it was dismissed on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. So, yeah, you're wrong
 
2013-08-13 12:38:14 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?

Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.

I like how you don't address the salient point - that Redskin being a racial slur is entirely subjective.

I did address the salient point, with a direct quotation from the statute. I like how you ignored that and made yourself look like an idiot.

File suit if you think you have a case

The suit has already been filed and won on exactly those grounds. As noted above, it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits. So, yeah, you're wrong.

No, it was dismissed on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. So, yeah, you're wrong


Want to know how I know you're functionally illiterate, and skimmed the Wiki rather than reading either the decisions or what I wrote?
 
2013-08-13 12:42:47 PM  

Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?

Is "cocaine" a race? Your analogy is misplaced.

But let's look at the law:
15 USC 1052: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute...A racist slur disparages living and dead people, and brings them into contempt. A name of a drug, even an illegal one, does not. Nor is the name itself immoral or scandalous.

I like how you don't address the salient point - that Redskin being a racial slur is entirely subjective.

I did address the salient point, with a direct quotation from the statute. I like how you ignored that and made yourself look like an idiot.

File suit if you think you have a case

The suit has already been filed and won on exactly those grounds. As noted above, it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits. So, yeah, you're wrong.

No, it was dismissed on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. So, yeah, you're wrong

Want to know how I know you're functionally illiterate, and skimmed the Wiki rather than reading either the decisions or what I wrote?


Show me where I'm wrong

/insert the ITG "I'm not here to educate you" retort
 
2013-08-13 12:44:56 PM  

Theaetetus: Want to know how I know you're functionally illiterate, and skimmed the Wiki rather than reading either the decisions or what I wrote?


On my to-do list for today this year: "Get involved in legal argument with Theaetetus" NOT FOUND
 
2013-08-13 12:45:38 PM  
I see the Cleveland Indians logo, the Florida State Seminoles logo, the Washington Redskins logo, and the first thing I think is, hey, that's the Indians/Seminoles/Redskins.  I have never thought any of these logos were racist; that thought never entered my mind. To me, they're just various names for the PC term of Native Americans.

I understand that due to people holding on to the past and wanting to be "special" (the Snowflake Syndrome), there are terms that have been accepted by the majority that should not be used for various peoples. However, I find it hard to believe that someone can be truly hurt by a word. I also find it reprehensible that there are people out there who openly teach that a word can be offensive, and should not be said. What is wrong with us as a society when a word is basically banned from a language??

Apparently, there is something wrong with me. Should I be put in a Reeducation Camp so I can think like these people??

\More important things to worry about
\\Sticks and stones...
 
2013-08-13 12:46:16 PM  
Also, there's another pending suit that doesn't have the laches problem, since the plaintiffs have only just reached the age of majority.
 
2013-08-13 12:48:26 PM  

Theaetetus: Also, there's another pending suit that doesn't have the laches problem, since the plaintiffs have only just reached the age of majority.


which is what i thought the DC suit left open....i think judge kollar-kotelly said that was an option, but frankly, i've not followed the case thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat closely.  but at some point the res judicata aspect kicks in. you can't just keep finding new 18-yr old plaintiffs and file suit after suit after suit until you get the result.  like i said, they picked a case with shiatty facts to litigate the issue.
 
2013-08-13 12:52:07 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus:
The suit has already been filed and won on exactly those grounds. As noted above, it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits. So, yeah, you're wrong.

No [but actually yes], it was dismissed [by the district court] on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. [The appellate court only affirmed the laches finding and reversed and remanded for further proceedings, so when I'm about to say "yeah, you're wrong," I'm using that as code to say that really, I'm wrong]. So, yeah, you're wrong

Want to know how I know you're functionally illiterate, and skimmed the Wiki rather than reading either the decisions or what I wrote?

Show me where I'm wrong


F. Lots of corrections and insertions required. See me after class.
 
2013-08-13 12:57:52 PM  
Will scalping of tickets still be allowed?
 
2013-08-13 12:59:43 PM  

rickythepenguin: Theaetetus: Also, there's another pending suit that doesn't have the laches problem, since the plaintiffs have only just reached the age of majority.

which is what i thought the DC suit left open....i think judge kollar-kotelly said that was an option, but frankly, i've not followed the case thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat closely.  but at some point the res judicata aspect kicks in. you can't just keep finding new 18-yr old plaintiffs and file suit after suit after suit until you get the result.  like i said, they picked a case with shiatty facts to litigate the issue.


It's true generally, but res judicata only applies to identical parties (except for things like class action suits, where people who could've joined the class but didn't are precluded).  In the appellate decision, they said that even though Pro-Football would never have security in its registration against future plaintiffs, that's what Congress intended when they didn't include a statute of limitations:
Why should equity elevate Pro-Football's perpetual security in the unlawful registration of a trademark over the interest of a Native American who challenged this registration without lack of diligence? Why should laches bar all Native Americans from challenging Pro-Football's "Redskins" trademark registrations because some Native Americans may have slept on their rights?
The fact that Pro-Football may never have security in its trademark registrations stems from Congress's decision not to set a statute of limitations and instead to authorize petitions for cancellation based on disparagement "[a]t any time." See 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). Congress knew perfectly well how to set statutes of limitations -- as noted earlier, it required that petitions for cancellations on many other grounds be brought "[w]ithin five years" of registration, id. § -- but consciously declined to do so with respect to cancellation petitions based on disparagement. Indeed, Congress may well have denied companies the benefit of a statute of limitations for potentially disparaging trademarks for the very purpose of discouraging the use of such marks.
 
2013-08-13 12:59:52 PM  

UberDave: cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?

I think so.  I do think Native Americans have a problem with the name but I haven't really looked into it...

But that does remind me of a CSB - One of my good friends is Chinese (Cantonese, came here in her mid 20s).  I remember one day when she used the word "Oriental".  I told her that some people here in America get offended over that.  She was floored as to why and then commented that they were probably ABCs or white people.


It is odd how some terms become derogatory. There is inherently nothing wrong with the term Oriental. All it means is "of the East." Yet it was the word used in the past and in the past people were mad racist and therefore the word itself becomes racist.
 
2013-08-13 01:00:16 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
I feel like I'm in a sassy sandwich!
 
2013-08-13 01:02:32 PM  

crotchgrabber: FlashHarry: i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."

I grew up on a reservation and was unaware for years that I was supposed to be offended by the term "redskin"

It still doesn't bother me one bit.


I remember seeing a study in Time magazine probably 15 years ago and basically the results were with your sentiment.  The majority of Native Americans that grew up on reservations were not offended by "redskin" while a majority of Native Americans who did not grow up on reservations were offended by "redskin"....Wish I could find that study again....
My two cents....change the name....just because you killed the majority of the people you used the term to identify should be enough for you to think twice about using it here and now....
 
2013-08-13 01:07:05 PM  

Theaetetus: res judicata only applies to identical parties


you'd know more than i!  i just vaguely recall the judge pondering the possibility of the "right" plaintiff but that was years ago.


AngryPoet: The majority of Native Americans that grew up on reservations were not offended by "redskin" while a majority of Native Americans who did not grow up on reservations were offended by "redskin"....Wish I could find that study again....


yeah, some like it.  i've lived off and on and some don't care at all, some are deeply offended.  there's no one answer.  it is not unlike -- back to riley cooper -- some black leaders can't stand the use of the N word, others don't give a shiat.
 
2013-08-13 01:21:30 PM  
Psh, we're pleased as punch with the Fighting Irish name, lol.
 
2013-08-13 01:23:58 PM  

Theaetetus: GRCooper:

No [but actually yes], it was dismissed [by the district court] on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. [The appellate court only affirmed the laches finding and reversed and remanded for further proceedings,


So, the District Court says "too late (laches) and lacking evidence of disparagement", Court of Appeals says "TBD on disparagement, we'll wait until it's decided if laches applies in a disparagement case and, if it does, does it apply in this case"?

That sounds different than "it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits".  I mean, you're not saying that the suit was meritless, but you can see where that would be inferred, no?
 
2013-08-13 01:29:37 PM  
I like to call them the Washington Taters.
 
2013-08-13 01:36:42 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper:

No [but actually yes], it was dismissed [by the district court] on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. [The appellate court only affirmed the laches finding and reversed and remanded for further proceedings,

So, the District Court says "too late (laches) and lacking evidence of disparagement", Court of Appeals says "TBD on disparagement, we'll wait until it's decided if laches applies in a disparagement case and, if it does, does it apply in this case"?

That sounds different than "it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits".  I mean, you're not saying that the suit was meritless, but you can see where that would be inferred, no?


you are skipping the whole PTO determination.  There was an adminstrative law judge (actually 3, but not important) that made the initial determination that it was disparaging.

Because it was an agency action, it was "appealed" to the district court.
 
2013-08-13 01:41:10 PM  

bacongood: GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper:

No [but actually yes], it was dismissed [by the district court] on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. [The appellate court only affirmed the laches finding and reversed and remanded for further proceedings,

So, the District Court says "too late (laches) and lacking evidence of disparagement", Court of Appeals says "TBD on disparagement, we'll wait until it's decided if laches applies in a disparagement case and, if it does, does it apply in this case"?

That sounds different than "it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits".  I mean, you're not saying that the suit was meritless, but you can see where that would be inferred, no?

you are skipping the whole PTO determination.  There was an adminstrative law judge (actually 3, but not important) that made the initial determination that it was disparaging.

Because it was an agency action, it was "appealed" to the district court.


Ok.  But the District Court rejected that decision, no?  The Appeals court has not ruled.  So, as of the latest ruling, "Redskins" is not disparaging.
 
2013-08-13 01:43:37 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper:

No [but actually yes], it was dismissed [by the district court] on grounds that it was filed too late AND that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. [The appellate court only affirmed the laches finding and reversed and remanded for further proceedings,

So, the District Court says "too late (laches) and lacking evidence of disparagement", Court of Appeals says "TBD on disparagement, we'll wait until it's decided if laches applies in a disparagement case and, if it does, does it apply in this case"?

That sounds different than "it was reversed by the appellate court because the suit had been brought too late, not because it was flawed on the merits".  I mean, you're not saying that the suit was meritless, but you can see where that would be inferred, no?


District court: "You lose because of two separate reasons, A and B, either of which would be enough alone to sink your suit."
Appellate court: "Not so fast. We're making you review this again, and in particular, your decision on B was very wrong."

If the district court was correct on A, they would have affirmed the prior decision in part and dismissed the case.
 
2013-08-13 01:44:00 PM  
I remember years ago there was a group of native americans protesting at a redskins game. It was one of the few games I had ever been to and it was the year they won their last superbowl. IIRC that year this group was going after any team in any pro or college sport that had a native american themed mascot. I think pretty much every team told them to pound sand. Think it lasted about a year before they got bored.
 
2013-08-13 01:49:35 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_commu ni cation/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf


Who the f*ck wrote the question?

"The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?"

Hey, if 90% of people don't care one way or another about something, but 10% are significantly offended, we should keep something that's insignificant to us. After all, it' only a constant reminder of hate to 10% of their population!

Foxxinnia: There is inherently nothing wrong with the term Oriental. All it means is "of the East." Yet it was the word used in the past and in the past people were mad racist and therefore the word itself becomes racist.


Well, it's basically a one-word term for "they all look alike."

Kellner21: However, I find it hard to believe that someone can be truly hurt by a word.


So, do you believe that someone can be made happy by a word (or set of words)? Do you believe that words can convey any kind of emotion, and cause a reaction in other people? Or does the power of words and language stop magically when it comes to the ability to hurt people?

GRCooper: /insert the ITG "I'm not here to educate you" retort


That's quite clear.
 
2013-08-13 01:55:24 PM  

Theaetetus: District court: "You lose because of two separate reasons, A and B, either of which would be enough alone to sink your suit."
Appellate court: "Not so fast. We're making you review this again, and in particular, your decision on B was very wrong."

If the district court was correct on A, they would have affirmed the prior decision in part and dismissed the case.


"It retained jurisdiction over the rest of the case (including the question of whether the TTAB's decision had been supported by substantial evidence), pending the District Court's resolution of the laches issue." (I cribbed that from the Wiki.  Mea Culpa).

Deciding whether a case can be filed in the first place takes precedence over determining the merits of the case, no?   I see what you're saying, but just because the Appeals court isn't willing to affirm or dismiss the lower court's ruling out of hand doesn't, to me, indicate their opinion one way or another.  I agree that if they HAD affirmed it would have made my argument easier, but I'm not giving up just because they didn't.
 
2013-08-13 02:05:20 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: District court: "You lose because of two separate reasons, A and B, either of which would be enough alone to sink your suit."
Appellate court: "Not so fast. We're making you review this again, and in particular, your decision on B was very wrong."

If the district court was correct on A, they would have affirmed the prior decision in part and dismissed the case.

"It retained jurisdiction over the rest of the case (including the question of whether the TTAB's decision had been supported by substantial evidence), pending the District Court's resolution of the laches issue." (I cribbed that from the Wiki.  Mea Culpa).

Deciding whether a case can be filed in the first place takes precedence over determining the merits of the case, no?   I see what you're saying, but just because the Appeals court isn't willing to affirm or dismiss the lower court's ruling out of hand doesn't, to me, indicate their opinion one way or another.  I agree that if they HAD affirmed it would have made my argument easier, but I'm not giving up just because they didn't.


It ended up with 6 more years of litigation on what you claim is a moot question, wasting millions upon millions of dollars. Does that make sense to you, logically? Or, might Occam's Razor suggest that your presumption isn't true?
 
2013-08-13 02:11:56 PM  
Theaetetus:

It ended up with 6 more years of litigation on what you claim is a moot question, wasting millions upon millions of dollars. Does that make sense to you, logically? Or, might Occam's Razor suggest that your presumption isn't true?

Everything I've read says that the continuing litigation is over whether or not laches applies.

In any case, the same argument could be applied to your assertion that "Redskin" is a 'racist slur' that should not be protected by trademark law.
 
2013-08-13 02:18:26 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus:

It ended up with 6 more years of litigation on what you claim is a moot question, wasting millions upon millions of dollars. Does that make sense to you, logically? Or, might Occam's Razor suggest that your presumption isn't true?

Everything I've read says that the continuing litigation is over whether or not laches applies.


Yes, exactly. And why would you spend 6 years and millions of dollars arguing over whether or not laches applies if the suit was already dead on the merits?

In any case, the same argument could be applied to your assertion that "Redskin" is a 'racist slur' that should not be protected by trademark law.

I have literally no idea what you're trying to say here. Because people fight in courts about this, therefore "Redskin" isn't a racist slur?
 
2013-08-13 02:20:31 PM  
How about the "Washington Alcoholic-Americans"?
 
2013-08-13 02:29:08 PM  

Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus:

It ended up with 6 more years of litigation on what you claim is a moot question, wasting millions upon millions of dollars. Does that make sense to you, logically? Or, might Occam's Razor suggest that your presumption isn't true?

In any case, the same argument could be applied to your assertion that "Redskin" is a 'racist slur' that should not be protected by trademark law.

I have literally no idea what you're trying to say here. Because people fight in courts about this, therefore "Redskin" isn't a racist slur?


If it was a given that Redskin is a racist slur, it would not require six years of litigation to determine that.  If one side isn't wasting millions of dollars on a lawsuit, why do you suggest that the other side is?  I quote you from earlier:

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur?

So, according to your point, why would the Redskins spend 6 years and millions of dollars defending a brand that is a racist slur.  Does that make sense to you, logically?  Or, might Occam's Razor suggest your presumption isn't true?

Yes, exactly. And why would you spend 6 years and millions of dollars arguing over whether or not laches applies if the suit was already dead on the merits?

You'll have to ask that question of the people wasting those millions of dollars
 
2013-08-13 02:38:19 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?

If I'm offended that cocaine kills many people, should Coca-Cola lose trademark protection?


Could you articulate the "Redskins is not a racist slur"  subjective viewpoint for us?
 
2013-08-13 02:49:32 PM  

IAmTheTagTeamChampions: This headline is giving me a hankerin' for some pancakes...


I was just thinking the same thing.
 
2013-08-13 02:59:48 PM  

meanmutton: js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things

Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.


Even more reason to not get sports news from Slate.
 
2013-08-13 03:03:13 PM  

darwinpolice: I like to call them the Washington Taters.


I forget where I first saw it, but I still like the flippant suggestion that the Redskins just change their mascot/emblem to a bushel of potatoes and keep the name. Presto, no more racism! Plus an accurate depiction of Dan Snyder's intellectual capacity!
 
2013-08-13 03:15:22 PM  

GRCooper: If it was a given that Redskin is a racist slur, it would not require six years of litigation to determine that.  If one side isn't wasting millions of dollars on a lawsuit, why do you suggest that the other side is?
... So, according to your point, why would the Redskins spend 6 years and millions of dollars defending a brand that is a racist slur.  Does that make sense to you, logically?  Or, might Occam's Razor suggest your presumption isn't true?


Why would the Redskins spend millions of dollars defending their brand, even if it may be a racist slur? I suggest you review what this insightful person pointed out:

GRCooper: Most valuable sports franchises in the world (slideshowy):

1)  Manchester United
2) Real Madrid
3) New York Yankees
4) Dallas Cowboys
5)  Washington Redskins

Ferrari?  Ranked 15th.

So, I doubt they're going to throw away the 5th most valuable sports brand *in the world* because of some web page butthurt.

 
2013-08-13 03:17:13 PM  

vpb: [upload.wikimedia.org image 400x269]


UNC!
 
2013-08-13 03:20:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: You want to talk about racist nicknames? What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? How dare Notre Dame insinuate that every Irishman is a lush who can't stop himself from getting uncontrollably piss-my-pants drunk and starting gigantic brawls?

If the nickname was "The Irish", the implication would be that all from the Emerald Isle are bearded, diminutive, and punch-happy. The addition of the adjective, to me, suggests that the name is meant to evoke a subset of Irish - those that do like to fight.

If the DC team was named "The Fighting Redskins" it'd still be offensive because the term "redskin" is.

// sure, colloquially everyone calls them "the Irish", but that's hardly the same


So, the "Drunken Native Americans" wouldn't be as offensive as "redskins" to you? Native Americans is the preferred term, and "drunken" only refers to a subset that drink to excess. So teetotaling native Americans shouldn't take offense.
 
2013-08-13 03:25:28 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: So, the "Drunken Native Americans" wouldn't be as offensive as "redskins" to you?


Not racially offensive, no.

// it offends me more as a sports fan
// that's the dumbest name you could think of for a sports team
// then again, a team called the Memphis Greedy Jew Bankers would be pretty offensive
 
2013-08-13 03:34:35 PM  
www.bloguin.com

i258.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-13 04:45:53 PM  
The NFL's days are numbered anyway. They can't escape the head injury stuff forever. And while they may eventually pay off the former players, who knows what kind of damage is being done to high school and college players that will never make the pros.
 
2013-08-13 04:53:38 PM  

Rapmaster2000: The Washington Redskins is now a liberal/conservative thing.  Stick it to the libs by cheering for a bad football team in Washington.

American Political Discourse:  2013.


It is? Because I am pretty liberal and think they should ignore these people and keep the name.
 
2013-08-13 04:54:42 PM  

Rapmaster2000: meanmutton: js34603: Awful day. Where can I get my football news if not for Slate, Mother Jones, and the other one?

There just isn't anyone else who covers the NFL as thoroughly and insightfully as Slate, Father James, and the other one. Hopefully losing the insightful coverage of Slats, Ma Kettle, and the other one will spur the NFL to action so their fans do not miss the amazing NFL coverage provided by those three...papers? Or are they magazines? Websites?

/Dan Snyder, tear down that nickname! So that we may all be free to enjoy the fine football analysis provided by these three...things

Slate did have Gregg Easterbrook do his TMQ column there several years ago.

Slate's NFL writing is pretty good.  I'll take Stefan Fatsis over Skip Bayless any day.


I like Stefan Fatsis too, but just about anyone is better than Skip Bayless.  His younger brother, Rick, for example.  His recipes read better than Skip's drivel.
 
2013-08-13 05:04:02 PM  

meanmutton: dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that while the name may be mildly offensive to some, it's actually a kind of compliment.

In the United States, we generally name football teams after people and animals that we deem to have great courage and fighting ability.  There are some local exceptions, of course, but you don't see the opposite.  There is no team called the "North Dakota Milquetoasts" or the "Wyoming Possums".

Ohio State Buckeyes, U-C San Diego Banana Slugs, Arizona/St. Louis Cardinals, Red/White Sox, Anaheim Ducks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Chicago Cubs, Baltimore Orioles, Detroit Lions

/The Detroit Lions are so lacking in "great courage and fighting ability" that it has forever tarnished the reputation of actual lions.


The Banana Slugs are actually for UC Santa Cruz.  The USCD mascot is the Triton.
 
2013-08-13 05:20:37 PM  

kiteless: cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?

You are right.  All those Native Americans in the government and the media should be speaking up, right?  Oh, there aren't any?

"Whens the last time you met two Indians?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdQg7jTXUt8


And since there aren't any in the media and government, I guess they are also not allowed to build websites or protest or do any of the myriad other things that a few million people could do to draw attention to their cause.  Except there is no cause, since, when polled, they've overwhelming said that THEY DON'T CARE.
 
2013-08-13 05:52:37 PM  

RickN99: Except there is no cause, since, when polled, they've overwhelming said that THEY DON'T CARE.


Well, they were polled with an amazingly stupid question, which I quoted earlier.

You'll also notice that the less education someone has, the more they think that "Redskins" isn't an offensive term. Also, the less they've seen and dealt with people of all races, they less likely they are to be offended by it.

So basically, they're pretty much like everyone else. The more in favor you are of keeping the name, the more likely you are to be an uneducated, uncultured moron.

/they didn't even have an option where they approve of the name, FFS
//again, if the best you can say about it is that it doesn't matter to most people, then WHY THE F*CK DO YOU CARE SO MUCH THAT IT STAYS THE SAME? Do you really just feel the need to stick it to the 10% that are offended by it, because you're that much of an asshole?
 
2013-08-13 05:57:07 PM  

IAmRight: //again, if the best you can say about it is that it doesn't matter to most people, then WHY THE F*CK DO YOU CARE SO MUCH THAT IT STAYS THE SAME? Do you really just feel the need to stick it to the 10% that are offended by it, because you're that much of an asshole?


There's a weird segment of the population that, when something is possibly offensive, defends the possibly offensive thing.

Fark threads built around "person is offended by some thing that really isn't that bad" are pretty common.  Everyone gathers to laugh at the person in question, who in many cases is pretty silly and misinterpreting whatever it is that offends them.  Nobody ever says "gee, if this person is so upset about this, maybe their neighbor could take down the Halloween ornament that really looks nothing like a noose but is upsetting this person anyway."

It's as if there's a moral imperative to stand behind things that are close to but not quite offensive.
 
2013-08-13 06:03:52 PM  
Truly a reasounding victory for social justice warriors everywhere.
 
2013-08-13 06:31:28 PM  

AngryPoet: crotchgrabber: FlashHarry: i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."

I grew up on a reservation and was unaware for years that I was supposed to be offended by the term "redskin"

It still doesn't bother me one bit.

I remember seeing a study in Time magazine probably 15 years ago and basically the results were with your sentiment.  The majority of Native Americans that grew up on reservations were not offended by "redskin" while a majority of Native Americans who did not grow up on reservations were offended by "redskin"....Wish I could find that study again....
My two cents....change the name....just because you killed the majority of the people you used the term to identify should be enough for you to think twice about using it here and now....


Disease killed most of them, not me.
 
2013-08-13 07:01:03 PM  

Dafatone: There's a weird segment of the population that, when something is possibly offensive, defends the possibly offensive thing.


There's an even weirder portion of the population that, when something possibly offends them, thinks that makes it someone else's problem, and that those someone elses are somehow obligated to Do Something.
 
2013-08-13 07:11:39 PM  

rickythepenguin: I've said for a few weeks now -- just as i said with Imus' "nappy headed hos" dustup - the media's double standard on ethnic slurs is laughable.  Imus got fired, Riley Cooper is a pariah, yet the same folks calling for their heads on platters have no quarrel with "Redskin".

i'm a native american and i don'thave a problem with some names. i think it is cool as shiat that the Army, for example, named its rotary winged assault craft things like "Kiowa", "Apache", "Chinook", etc.  i don't have a problem with atlanta braves (the mascot is another thing, though) or the celevaland indians.  but, there is a line, as with many things, and it is just unconscionable that the pro team from washington has this name.

and before we start in with the "don't you guys have better things to worry about, like alcoholism, literacy, blah blah blah", every issue has its time.  and more to the point, that i am indian does not mean that i am stuck in that cycle of destructive behavior.  some indians have things called "degrees" and make $125K a year.  shocking, innit?


Weren6t you Asian just a month or two ago?
 
2013-08-13 07:20:17 PM  

the lord god: Rapmaster2000: The Washington Redskins is now a liberal/conservative thing.  Stick it to the libs by cheering for a bad football team in Washington.

American Political Discourse:  2013.

It is? Because I am pretty liberal and think they should ignore these people and keep the name.


That was a dig at NRO. Since a lib at slate hates the name that means all libs hate it and we hate the libs so suck it Cowboys. Or whatever.
 
2013-08-13 08:30:30 PM  

BigJake: Dafatone: There's a weird segment of the population that, when something is possibly offensive, defends the possibly offensive thing.

There's an even weirder portion of the population that, when something possibly offends them, thinks that makes it someone else's problem, and that those someone elses are somehow obligated to Do Something.


Let's set aside the skins, cause you're gonna have a lot of allegiances and whatnot there.

I referenced an article where a guy hung up a Halloween ornament that his neighbor thought looked like a lynching.  It did not resemble a lynching very much.  She asked the guy to take it down and he said no.  Now, I'm not saying that he should have taken it down, but if he had done so, that would have been a nice thing to do.  A lot of people here thought he had an obligation to keep it up, just to continue to piss her off.

How does that make sense?
 
2013-08-13 08:51:22 PM  

FlashHarry: i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."


It was - but how long ago now? A century? It's not an everyday use term anymore, and words change. Now, for damn near everyone not busy being all outraged for either profit or white guilt, it's nothing more than the name of a football team.
 
2013-08-13 09:19:22 PM  

Dafatone: How does that make sense?


It makes more sense than allowing the fruit bats of the world to dictate how the rest of us live our lives. I don't care if that woman thinks it looks like a noose, and I'm not going to go a single step out of my way to mollify her burgeoning mental illness. I'm also not going to stop doing about a billion things the religious right would like for people to stop doing, or anti-[insert cause here] activists would like me to stop doing, or a toothless HOA would like me to stop doing within reason. Opinions are like assholes as they say, but it feels like more and more of the time someone else having an opinion about something means YOU need to Stop (or Start) Doing Things. No, I'm not gonna go veg. No, I'm not gonna stop using birth control. No, I'm not gonna take down a thing that looks like a noose in your eyes only. No, I'm not buying a Prius as my next vehicle. No, I'm not gonna get really angry about having a black president. BACK THE FARK OFF.

(please note that final line isn't directed at you specifically)
 
2013-08-13 09:40:58 PM  

GRCooper: Ferrari? Ranked 15th.


It takes a lot of money to dictate the terms of the Concorde Agreement.  Bribing Bernie isn't cheap, either.
 
2013-08-13 09:48:39 PM  
I'm sorry, I'm about as liberal as they come, but (Jeez, look at me, doing that thing I hate...) if they're gonna not say Redskins, they better go whole hog and not call the Atlanta baseball team the Braves, the Cleveland baseball team the Indians or the Tribe, the Chicago hockey team the Blackhawks, the Florida State University football team the Seminoles or the University of Utah football team the Utes.
 
2013-08-13 09:51:38 PM  

BigJake: Dafatone: How does that make sense?

It makes more sense than allowing the fruit bats of the world to dictate how the rest of us live our lives. I don't care if that woman thinks it looks like a noose, and I'm not going to go a single step out of my way to mollify her burgeoning mental illness. I'm also not going to stop doing about a billion things the religious right would like for people to stop doing, or anti-[insert cause here] activists would like me to stop doing, or a toothless HOA would like me to stop doing within reason. Opinions are like assholes as they say, but it feels like more and more of the time someone else having an opinion about something means YOU need to Stop (or Start) Doing Things. No, I'm not gonna go veg. No, I'm not gonna stop using birth control. No, I'm not gonna take down a thing that looks like a noose in your eyes only. No, I'm not buying a Prius as my next vehicle. No, I'm not gonna get really angry about having a black president. BACK THE FARK OFF.

(please note that final line isn't directed at you specifically)


Part of the problem is the internet.  You hear about tons and tons and tons of people asking neighbors to take down ornaments, and suddenly it seems like everyone is complaining about something.  When in reality, almost all of these incidents have nothing to do with you and are nowhere near your world, and the woman complaining about a "noose" isn't 10,000 women angry at 10,000 "nooses", but one woman with one problem in her world.
 
2013-08-13 10:10:26 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Yeah, but are they referring to [redacted] as womyn? Because if not, they're just mere tools of The Patriarchy.


You sound like someone who hasn't read Slate's XX blogs.
 
2013-08-13 10:17:00 PM  

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: No, there's no reason to change one of the most successful/popular brands *in the world* because it offends some people.

The bigger question is should the government protect such a successful brand, in spite of the fact that it's a racist slur? Maybe the owners can keep using it if they want, but should they have federal protection on the mark?

Despite the fact that "racist slur" is entirely subjective?


Just because you say something is a fact doesn't mean it's true.
 
2013-08-13 10:19:10 PM  

crotchgrabber: FlashHarry: i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."

I grew up on a reservation and was unaware for years that I was supposed to be offended by the term "redskin"

It still doesn't bother me one bit.


Spoiler alert: You're not the king of Native American people.
 
2013-08-13 11:16:11 PM  

IlGreven: I'm sorry, I'm about as liberal as they come, but (Jeez, look at me, doing that thing I hate...) if they're gonna not say Redskins, they better go whole hog and not call the Atlanta baseball team the Braves, the Cleveland baseball team the Indians or the Tribe, the Chicago hockey team the Blackhawks, the Florida State University football team the Seminoles or the University of Utah football team the Utes.


Those are racial slurs?
 
2013-08-14 12:43:15 AM  
I didn't know Mother Jones had a sports section.
 
2013-08-14 02:09:23 AM  

FlashHarry: i'm a big fan of tradition, but "redskin" is pretty much the native american version of "spearchucker."


They used to throw the javelin?
 
2013-08-14 08:03:16 AM  

meanmutton: IlGreven: I'm sorry, I'm about as liberal as they come, but (Jeez, look at me, doing that thing I hate...) if they're gonna not say Redskins, they better go whole hog and not call the Atlanta baseball team the Braves, the Cleveland baseball team the Indians or the Tribe, the Chicago hockey team the Blackhawks, the Florida State University football team the Seminoles or the University of Utah football team the Utes.

Those are racial slurs?


In context, yes. Let's see what we have: The Seminoles and the Braves have a rather famous tune where they do a tomahawk chop in time with the music (and the Braves have a laughing Indian as a mascot)...the Indians are nicknamed the Tribe and have a super-smiley red-faced mascot; The Blackhawks have a similar mascot to the Redskins; and naming yourself after a local tribe isn't kosher, even if they approve. It'd be like if the New Orleans basketball team had renamed themselves the Creoles, or worse, the Sambos.
 
2013-08-14 09:59:47 AM  

IlGreven: meanmutton: IlGreven: I'm sorry, I'm about as liberal as they come, but (Jeez, look at me, doing that thing I hate...) if they're gonna not say Redskins, they better go whole hog and not call the Atlanta baseball team the Braves, the Cleveland baseball team the Indians or the Tribe, the Chicago hockey team the Blackhawks, the Florida State University football team the Seminoles or the University of Utah football team the Utes.

Those are racial slurs?

In context, yes. Let's see what we have: The Seminoles and the Braves have a rather famous tune where they do a tomahawk chop in time with the music (and the Braves have a laughing Indian as a mascot)...the Indians are nicknamed the Tribe and have a super-smiley red-faced mascot; The Blackhawks have a similar mascot to the Redskins; and naming yourself after a local tribe isn't kosher, even if they approve. It'd be like if the New Orleans basketball team had renamed themselves the Creoles, or worse, the Sambos.


Or Octaroons or Mandingos.
 
2013-08-14 11:08:23 AM  

IlGreven: The Blackhawks have a similar mascot to the Redskins; and naming yourself after a local tribe isn't kosher, even if they approve. It'd be like if the New Orleans basketball team had renamed themselves the Creoles, or worse, the Sambos.


Why? I'm interested in your rationale. (Honestly.)

Also, I'm not sure why "Creoles" would be especially offensive if Creole folks had a hand in the naming; that's a neutral term, while "Sambos" is not. Are the Ragin' Cajuns offensive, or is your position that it's only bad when ethnically-based team nicknames refer to people of color (even when they're OK with it) because of the potential oppressive implications and potential for fans to be racist shiatheads about it?

There are pretty clear-cut cases of "wow, that's racist" like the Redskins and the Chief Wahoo logo. In best-case scenarios, though, ethnic team names can serve as sincere expressions of local identity pride, community collaboration (cf. the few teams where Native Americans play an active role in shaping team imagery and such), and Native visibility.
 
2013-08-14 11:14:42 AM  

bacongood: cman: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that those who are biatching the loudest about using the "Redskin" name are really damn white?

That may be because we have done a pretty good job of making sure those who would actually be offended have zero voice.

/honestly thinks every home crowd should chant "racist nickname" whenever the Redskins come to town.


Stop with the infantalizing. Who elected you to determine what should offend certain people, and that they are powerless to speak for themselves? Whether they realize it or not, a lot of "white guilt" liberals are pretty racist themselves, but just in a different way.
 
Displayed 163 of 163 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report