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 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)
 
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