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  
•       •       •

510 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Aug 2013 at 9:11 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report