I just want to add, that polls are not entirely worthless. Nate Silver used his analysis of the polls to almost perfectly show Obama being elected and didn't he get all the Senate races too?
I just want to add, that polls are not entirely worthless. Nate Silver used his analysis of the polls to almost perfectly show Obama being elected and didn't he get all the Senate races too?
Nate Silver did not use a single poll as the data point par excellance. He used a congolomeration of a series of data points which relied upon polls that also factored in corrections based upon the polling agencies's political biases.
Not a single person here is the level of stat head the Nate Silver is, nor are they using conglomerate data.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
The Oneida Nation (I believe) aired the above commercial in several major markets during NBA finals games. "The spot will run in Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento, San Francisco and Washington, and ran in Miami during Game 2." (from the article - written before Game 3, obviously).
What are people's thoughts on the ad? For me, I think it's primary function is to put the lie to the claim that some people have that the word is not offensive, and that the word honors indians. Other than that, though, I don't think it will have much affect. Sadly, the people opposed to changing the name seem entrenched and appear to prefer rationalizing the name over considering whether it may actually be appropriate to change it.
What are people's thoughts on the ad? For me, I think it's primary function is to put the lie to the claim that some people have that the word is not offensive, and that the word honors indians. Other than that, though, I don't think it will have much affect. Sadly, the people opposed to changing the name seem entrenched and appear to prefer rationalizing the name over considering whether it may actually be appropriate to change it.
Wait, they put the Crazy Horse Memorial in that in an implicitly approving fashion? Let's stick with one controversy at a time!
Seriously, I think it's quite a beautiful montage in its own right. I don't, however, expect it to be persuasive. Not just because the opposition is already so entrenched (although they are), but also because it doesn't really make the case that "redskin" is an offensive term. To show that, I think you'd almost have to go the exact opposite route: a montage of scenes from movies and TV where John Wayne et al. say "redskin" in a patently nasty and hateful way. Although it'd be ugly, and there are a bunch of reasons why it'd be inappropriate for prime time broadcast. Just for starters, it would be repeating the objectionable term an awful lot, and maybe it's not a good idea to put it out there more when you're trying to get people not to use it. But as far as simply providing evidence for its offensiveness goes, that seems like what needs to happen.
I think its a nice historical name honoring the native Americans.
If you review the etymology of the word "Redskin" it was and apparently, in some circles, is still used as a racist slur. In my opinion, there are many reasons to disregard the history of the word, namely most people primarily associate the word with a football team not as a Native American slur. As to your argument, it's not a "nice historical name".
It's obviously not wonderful to some Native Americans.
A constant reminder of yesterdays wrongs.
In the context it's used with the football team I'm not seeing any indication it as a reminder of yesterday's wrongs. It's a caricature, just like any number of others in mainstream entertainment. It's a caricature they use to identity themselves as an organzation. I do not understand why Native Americans are offended by a team name that has transcended its past and no longer viewed by many as a racial slur but rather a name and identity for a football team. Nothing more, nothing less. That is not to say we should ignore its past as derogatory name when dicussing the actual treatment of Native Americans. I think of the money spent on this issue and wonder how many other more important issues it could of been used on but nope, spend money railing about a football team name. Of the issues in the world, particularly in the NA community, it astounds me they are this concerned about their feelings getting hurt rather that using those resources for poverty or other terrible things that injustice has brought upon them. I have to question the decision making of the individuals who are running these ads. I believe they are offended, I just cant understand why they are spending money saying so when you have mainstream media outlets who will do it for free.
I personally see it the same exact way with organizations such as the NAACP and UNCF. While those terms offend some people, the intent on their usage is not one of evil or racism.
BTW Do you mind if i call you white skin? Would it be a problem to change the name to white skins? I think a lot of minorities would complain if they dubbed it the white skins. lol. cant please anyone always.
You've changed the context. You are now changing the word we are talking about that is being used to self-describe an organization to one that is describing a person. It's also important to understand there is difference between Redskin and red skin when used in a descriptive or identifying characteristics of a person. They literately mean two different things.
I put myself firmly in the change their name camp. The title redskins is offensive to native Americans and while I am not of that background myself I can see others would offended. A name is just a name, many other teams have changed their names over the years and changing would be of no consequence to the teams. So the fans have to buy a new shirt - the teams want them to buy the latest shirt each year anyway. It's not as if we are far away from each selling their name to corporate sponser anyway.
I mean who could be offended by the Washington Dunkin' Donouts. There's a team I could root for.
White guilt and post-modern liberal victimhood worship has become part of pop culture, so much so, that it really turns these issues into a powder keg of stupid hysteria
This, in response to every thread about anyone getting offended about pretty much anything. So absolutely true.
The vast majority of those name changes are nearly 100 years old, and almost all of them are location changes or slight changes without losing meaning (devil rays to rays, or NY giants to SF giants). Your best bet is a reference to the 50s and 60s, where a small handful of teams changed their names slightly. To claim that name changes are regular or in any way normal to the sport is untrue.
White guilt and post-modern liberal victimhood worship has become part of pop culture, so much so, that it really turns these issues into a powder keg of stupid hysteria
This, in response to every thread about anyone getting offended about pretty much anything. So absolutely true.
I'm not actually going to do it for obvious reasons, but I'm tempted to hit you with a barrage of increasingly nasty personal insults until you get pissed off, and then ask, "So we shouldn't give that name to a football team, then?"
You will note that people in this thread objecting to the name come from all over our forum's political spectrum. I can't speak for the motives of everyone, but for my part this has nothing to do with white guilt or post-modern liberal victimhood, since I'm not a subscriber to either, and I suspect the same is true of posters like bLatch. It's the simple fact that some words are considered very rude and avoided in regular public discourse - not just by the crazy lefties, but by everyone. You wouldn't see "redskin" in a news article or hear it in a political speech, any more than you'd see/hear "n*****", "c***", or "motherf***er". So, like those other words, it's not appropriate as the name for a major national all-ages entertainment franchise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
White guilt and post-modern liberal victimhood worship has become part of pop culture, so much so, that it really turns these issues into a powder keg of stupid hysteria
This, in response to every thread about anyone getting offended about pretty much anything. So absolutely true.
I'm not actually going to do it for obvious reasons, but I'm tempted to hit you with a barrage of increasingly nasty personal insults until you get pissed off, and then ask, "So we shouldn't give that name to a football team, then?"
You will note that people in this thread objecting to the name come from all over our forum's political spectrum. I can't speak for the motives of everyone, but for my part this has nothing to do with white guilt or post-modern liberal victimhood, since I'm not a subscriber to either, and I suspect the same is true of posters like bLatch. It's the simple fact that some words are considered very rude and avoided in regular public discourse - not just by the crazy lefties, but by everyone. You wouldn't see "redskin" in a news article or hear it in a political speech, any more than you'd see/hear "n*****", "c***", or "motherf***er". So, like those other words, it's not appropriate as the name for a major national all-ages entertainment franchise.
So majority of Americans think Redskins, in the context of the Washington Redskins, associate it with words such as mother****er, ******, ******, etc, etc. I call bull***** on that. Its only a rude word because Native Americans say its a rude word. Since when does group own a word and can define all contexts and use of a word as insensitive? Most people associate this word with a football team not as a racial slur.
They should change their name to the Washington Billydaman-Is-A-Child-Rapists. It's just a football name - it clearly has nothing to do with billydaman.
They should change their name to the Washington Billydaman-Is-A-Child-Rapists. It's just a football name - it clearly has nothing to do with billydaman.
I forgot, the Redskins are calling Native Americans redskins. What do the Washington football team call themselves?
That is the problem with your argument. They are not personally attacking anyone. Its not being used to describe anyone but themselves.
Its only a rude word because Native Americans say its a rude word.
Not just Native Americans - you do too. Unless you actually are a full-on racist, I'm willing to bet that you avoid using the term in polite conversation. That should be your clue.
Most people associate this word with a football team not as a racial slur.
I'ma challenge you on "most". And the people who do think it's not a racial slur are simply willfully ignorant, the way a guy who casually used the word "n*****" to refer to black people would be willfully ignorant. They have remained oblivious to the connotations society in general, and the people being referred to in particular, attaches to the terms. That is literally the definition of insensitivity.
They should change it for the reasons mentioned in this thread but I would be worried if any sort of government pressure was used.
What I see missing here is an explanation from the franchise itself on why they feel they should keep the name, it sounds like an epic case of high risk low benefit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Not just Native Americans - you do too. Unless you actually are a full-on racist, I'm willing to bet that you avoid using the term in polite conversation. That should be your clue.
Other than this forum, the only time I've ever even thought about using that word was in regards to a football team and I've never avoided saying it. To me and most others, the word does not define Native Americans. It seems to me the only people who want it to define Native Americans are Native Americans and other people who sympathize with Native Americans.
And the people who do think it's not a racial slur are simply willfully ignorant, the way a guy who casually used the word "n*****" to refer to black people would be willfully ignorant.
I find it astounding that you think a word that in some contexts has a negative connotation and that it should be applied to all uses of the word. ****** or variants of it are used in a non-offensive ways all the time. When some people use the word, its not used as a slur. I'm not ignorant to the fact that redskin can be used as a slur just as I'm not ignorant to the fact that rednecks can be used as one as well. Same with negro and colored people. The football team is using it to identify themselves. Just as the NAACP and UNCF. The Washington Redskins do not have the same connotations as ****** in our society but there are people who are trying to make it that way. The word redskin used to be that way but the football team has transcended the word to be an identifier of a football team, not a Native American.
They have remained oblivious to the connotations society in general, and the people being referred to in particular, attaches to the terms. That is literally the definition of insensitivity.
I find it astronomically crazy to change a positive/neutral connotation of a word to a negative one. They are obvious to the negative connotations and only aware of the positive/neutral context and this is a problem? You want people to think of the word Redskin, not as football team name but rather a racial slur.
Its only a rude word because Native Americans say its a rude word.
Not just Native Americans - you do too. Unless you actually are a full-on racist, I'm willing to bet that you avoid using the term in polite conversation. That should be your clue.
Most people associate this word with a football team not as a racial slur.
I'ma challenge you on "most". And the people who do think it's not a racial slur are simply willfully ignorant, the way a guy who casually used the word "n*****" to refer to black people would be willfully ignorant. They have remained oblivious to the connotations society in general, and the people being referred to in particular, attaches to the terms. That is literally the definition of insensitivity.
Read my sig. You are right and I'm wrong because a self-identifying logo is a using a caricature to represent themselves. I did not lose, you only think I did. Why don't you have problem with any movie that uses stereotypes and such for entertainment purposes? You going to go around and tell black people not to use the word "*****"? Are you going to rail against the NAACP or the UNCF? Of course not, that would be too damn consistent and wrong.
I forgot, the Redskins are calling Native Americans redskins. What do the Washington football team call themselves?
That is the problem with your argument. They are not personally attacking anyone. Its not being used to describe anyone but themselves.
I'm not personally attacking anyone either. It's a coincidence that your forum name happens to be similar to my proposed football name. No one would see it and think you were a child rapist, it's a football team. People will associate it with football.
I forgot, the Redskins are calling Native Americans redskins. What do the Washington football team call themselves?
That is the problem with your argument. They are not personally attacking anyone. Its not being used to describe anyone but themselves.
I'm not personally attacking anyone either. It's a coincidence that your forum name happens to be similar to my proposed football name. No one would see it and think you were a child rapist, it's a football team. People will associate it with football.
We've been through this before. There is a difference between a new name and name that's been around awhile. If a new organization was created today to help black people, its unlikely they'd use the term "colored" or "negro". It's very possible if a football team name was created today, it would not consider the name "Redskins". The point I'm making is the word has transcended its past as a racial slur and has come to mean nothing more than a football team name. Should they of used that name a long time ago, probably not but they literately transformed it in the conscious of the public from a racial slur to one of a football team. Changing the name now to one that include my specific forum name with a gross insult would be a gross insult. There is a distinction.
Are you going to rail against the NAACP or the UNCF?
As I've already said on this thread, to you, repeatedly, I do think they should consider name changes, but the situation isn't quite analogous for a variety of reasons that I'm not going to go over again.
We've been through this before. There is a difference between a new name and name that's been around awhile. If a new organization was created today to help black people, its unlikely they'd use the term "colored" or "negro". It's very possible if a football team name was created today, it would not consider the name "Redskins". The point I'm making is the word has transcended its past as a racial slur and has come to mean nothing more than a football team name. Should they of used that name a long time ago, probably not but they literately transformed it in the conscious of the public from a racial slur to one of a football team. Changing the name now to one that include my specific forum name with a gross insult would be a gross insult. There is a distinction.
That's okay, I'll wait 80 years before I consider your complaint, and then dismiss it. If I stall long enough, it'll all be fine.
If it were solely a representation of the football team, it would be a picture of a football player.
Says who? You poll people on the logo and name of any NFL team I bet they would associate it with a football team.
I do. Why don't you?
Because I find goodfellas entertaining and more importantly I'm intelligent enough to be aware that movies, football team names and other characterizations are not indicative of an entire group of people.
If they ask my opinion, yes, actually.
Why do you think you should have an opinion on what a group of friends refer to themselves as?
As I've already said on this thread, to you, repeatedly, I do think they should consider name changes, but the situation isn't quite analogous for a variety of reasons that I'm not going to go over again.
It is perfectly analogous. Both are organizations that use offensive words in their names and that's the crux of the argument. You know, as racist as I think white privilege is, I do not give a damn that they use white and privilege even when used together, which is also racist, in my opinion. Its name of the concept and its the concept I have issues with. The concept of the Washington Redskins is not one of racial superiority, its a concept of a organization trying to win games and make money. The Washington Redskins represent a football team, the UNCF and NAACP represent minorities, yet, you are concerned about what they call themselves. To me it's a superficial argument. I do not understand why people care so much about these types of issues.
We fundamentally disagree on the issue. I do appreciate your consistent logic in wanting to change names of everything offensive but I think you are wasting your time.
We've been through this before. There is a difference between a new name and name that's been around awhile. If a new organization was created today to help black people, its unlikely they'd use the term "colored" or "negro". It's very possible if a football team name was created today, it would not consider the name "Redskins". The point I'm making is the word has transcended its past as a racial slur and has come to mean nothing more than a football team name. Should they of used that name a long time ago, probably not but they literately transformed it in the conscious of the public from a racial slur to one of a football team. Changing the name now to one that include my specific forum name with a gross insult would be a gross insult. There is a distinction.
That's okay, I'll wait 80 years before I consider your complaint, and then dismiss it. If I stall long enough, it'll all be fine.
So you want to correct a historical mistake with a name change of the football team. Just another example of you wanting to punish other people for what other people did. It does not matter to you that by and large most people associate the team name with a team name and not as a racial slur.
I do not buy into the argument that we should repeat the same mistakes we did yesterday. I also do not buy we should change something due to something being wrong 80 years ago. Its like the people arguing for us to leave Iraq because it was wrong to go there in the first place. Its being naive to the fact that entire question has changed.
Because I find goodfellas entertaining and more importantly I'm intelligent enough to be aware that movies, football team names and other characterizations are not indicative of an entire group of people.
Goodfellas is not using stereotypes to entertain. The cast are fully fleshed-out individual characters. The script doesn't go, "Hurr hurr look at how Italian they are!"
Why do you think you should have an opinion on what a group of friends refer to themselves as?
For an assortment of reasons which, because the Washington Redskins and the Native American community are not a group of friends, are not relevant to this thread.
I do not understand why people care so much about these types of issues.
I don't have to care "so much" in order to say, when my opinion is directly asked, that yeah it's an inappropriate term and they should change it. Yes, there is a mountain of more pressing issues in this screwed-up world, but they don't make the name not inappropriate. People are being tortured to death in North Korean prison camps, but if I step on your toes, I've still breached our common standards of respect, and ought to apologize and endeavor not to do it again in the future. We don't have to make a huge earth-shaking deal out of it to acknowledge its wrongness.
Nate Silver did not use a single poll as the data point par excellance. He used a congolomeration of a series of data points which relied upon polls that also factored in corrections based upon the polling agencies's political biases.
Not a single person here is the level of stat head the Nate Silver is, nor are they using conglomerate data.
http://deadspin.com/heres-the-anti-redskins-commercial-that-will-run-during-1588597037
The Oneida Nation (I believe) aired the above commercial in several major markets during NBA finals games. "The spot will run in Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento, San Francisco and Washington, and ran in Miami during Game 2." (from the article - written before Game 3, obviously).
What are people's thoughts on the ad? For me, I think it's primary function is to put the lie to the claim that some people have that the word is not offensive, and that the word honors indians. Other than that, though, I don't think it will have much affect. Sadly, the people opposed to changing the name seem entrenched and appear to prefer rationalizing the name over considering whether it may actually be appropriate to change it.
Wait, they put the Crazy Horse Memorial in that in an implicitly approving fashion? Let's stick with one controversy at a time!
Seriously, I think it's quite a beautiful montage in its own right. I don't, however, expect it to be persuasive. Not just because the opposition is already so entrenched (although they are), but also because it doesn't really make the case that "redskin" is an offensive term. To show that, I think you'd almost have to go the exact opposite route: a montage of scenes from movies and TV where John Wayne et al. say "redskin" in a patently nasty and hateful way. Although it'd be ugly, and there are a bunch of reasons why it'd be inappropriate for prime time broadcast. Just for starters, it would be repeating the objectionable term an awful lot, and maybe it's not a good idea to put it out there more when you're trying to get people not to use it. But as far as simply providing evidence for its offensiveness goes, that seems like what needs to happen.
Protip: read the damn thread.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
http://sportslistoftheday.com/2011/07/09/major-league-baseball-history-of-team-name-changes/ Team names have changed a lot.
If you review the etymology of the word "Redskin" it was and apparently, in some circles, is still used as a racist slur. In my opinion, there are many reasons to disregard the history of the word, namely most people primarily associate the word with a football team not as a Native American slur. As to your argument, it's not a "nice historical name".
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It's obviously not wonderful to some Native Americans.
In the context it's used with the football team I'm not seeing any indication it as a reminder of yesterday's wrongs. It's a caricature, just like any number of others in mainstream entertainment. It's a caricature they use to identity themselves as an organzation. I do not understand why Native Americans are offended by a team name that has transcended its past and no longer viewed by many as a racial slur but rather a name and identity for a football team. Nothing more, nothing less. That is not to say we should ignore its past as derogatory name when dicussing the actual treatment of Native Americans. I think of the money spent on this issue and wonder how many other more important issues it could of been used on but nope, spend money railing about a football team name. Of the issues in the world, particularly in the NA community, it astounds me they are this concerned about their feelings getting hurt rather that using those resources for poverty or other terrible things that injustice has brought upon them. I have to question the decision making of the individuals who are running these ads. I believe they are offended, I just cant understand why they are spending money saying so when you have mainstream media outlets who will do it for free.
I personally see it the same exact way with organizations such as the NAACP and UNCF. While those terms offend some people, the intent on their usage is not one of evil or racism.
You've changed the context. You are now changing the word we are talking about that is being used to self-describe an organization to one that is describing a person. It's also important to understand there is difference between Redskin and red skin when used in a descriptive or identifying characteristics of a person. They literately mean two different things.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I mean who could be offended by the Washington Dunkin' Donouts. There's a team I could root for.
I'm Playing
New Challenge Everyday
Kank'sPremiumBlend
This, in response to every thread about anyone getting offended about pretty much anything. So absolutely true.
EDIT:
The vast majority of those name changes are nearly 100 years old, and almost all of them are location changes or slight changes without losing meaning (devil rays to rays, or NY giants to SF giants). Your best bet is a reference to the 50s and 60s, where a small handful of teams changed their names slightly. To claim that name changes are regular or in any way normal to the sport is untrue.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
You will note that people in this thread objecting to the name come from all over our forum's political spectrum. I can't speak for the motives of everyone, but for my part this has nothing to do with white guilt or post-modern liberal victimhood, since I'm not a subscriber to either, and I suspect the same is true of posters like bLatch. It's the simple fact that some words are considered very rude and avoided in regular public discourse - not just by the crazy lefties, but by everyone. You wouldn't see "redskin" in a news article or hear it in a political speech, any more than you'd see/hear "n*****", "c***", or "motherf***er". So, like those other words, it's not appropriate as the name for a major national all-ages entertainment franchise.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So majority of Americans think Redskins, in the context of the Washington Redskins, associate it with words such as mother****er, ******, ******, etc, etc. I call bull***** on that. Its only a rude word because Native Americans say its a rude word. Since when does group own a word and can define all contexts and use of a word as insensitive? Most people associate this word with a football team not as a racial slur.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I forgot, the Redskins are calling Native Americans redskins. What do the Washington football team call themselves?
That is the problem with your argument. They are not personally attacking anyone. Its not being used to describe anyone but themselves.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I'ma challenge you on "most". And the people who do think it's not a racial slur are simply willfully ignorant, the way a guy who casually used the word "n*****" to refer to black people would be willfully ignorant. They have remained oblivious to the connotations society in general, and the people being referred to in particular, attaches to the terms. That is literally the definition of insensitivity.
Yet again: we already had this debate. You lost.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What I see missing here is an explanation from the franchise itself on why they feel they should keep the name, it sounds like an epic case of high risk low benefit.
Other than this forum, the only time I've ever even thought about using that word was in regards to a football team and I've never avoided saying it. To me and most others, the word does not define Native Americans. It seems to me the only people who want it to define Native Americans are Native Americans and other people who sympathize with Native Americans.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_National_102.pdf
I find it astounding that you think a word that in some contexts has a negative connotation and that it should be applied to all uses of the word. ****** or variants of it are used in a non-offensive ways all the time. When some people use the word, its not used as a slur. I'm not ignorant to the fact that redskin can be used as a slur just as I'm not ignorant to the fact that rednecks can be used as one as well. Same with negro and colored people. The football team is using it to identify themselves. Just as the NAACP and UNCF. The Washington Redskins do not have the same connotations as ****** in our society but there are people who are trying to make it that way. The word redskin used to be that way but the football team has transcended the word to be an identifier of a football team, not a Native American.
I find it astronomically crazy to change a positive/neutral connotation of a word to a negative one. They are obvious to the negative connotations and only aware of the positive/neutral context and this is a problem? You want people to think of the word Redskin, not as football team name but rather a racial slur.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Read my sig. You are right and I'm wrong because a self-identifying logo is a using a caricature to represent themselves. I did not lose, you only think I did. Why don't you have problem with any movie that uses stereotypes and such for entertainment purposes? You going to go around and tell black people not to use the word "*****"? Are you going to rail against the NAACP or the UNCF? Of course not, that would be too damn consistent and wrong.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I'm not personally attacking anyone either. It's a coincidence that your forum name happens to be similar to my proposed football name. No one would see it and think you were a child rapist, it's a football team. People will associate it with football.
We've been through this before. There is a difference between a new name and name that's been around awhile. If a new organization was created today to help black people, its unlikely they'd use the term "colored" or "negro". It's very possible if a football team name was created today, it would not consider the name "Redskins". The point I'm making is the word has transcended its past as a racial slur and has come to mean nothing more than a football team name. Should they of used that name a long time ago, probably not but they literately transformed it in the conscious of the public from a racial slur to one of a football team. Changing the name now to one that include my specific forum name with a gross insult would be a gross insult. There is a distinction.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I do. Why don't you?
If they ask my opinion, yes, actually.
As I've already said on this thread, to you, repeatedly, I do think they should consider name changes, but the situation isn't quite analogous for a variety of reasons that I'm not going to go over again.
Strawman is made of straw.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's okay, I'll wait 80 years before I consider your complaint, and then dismiss it. If I stall long enough, it'll all be fine.
Says who? You poll people on the logo and name of any NFL team I bet they would associate it with a football team.
Because I find goodfellas entertaining and more importantly I'm intelligent enough to be aware that movies, football team names and other characterizations are not indicative of an entire group of people.
Why do you think you should have an opinion on what a group of friends refer to themselves as?
It is perfectly analogous. Both are organizations that use offensive words in their names and that's the crux of the argument. You know, as racist as I think white privilege is, I do not give a damn that they use white and privilege even when used together, which is also racist, in my opinion. Its name of the concept and its the concept I have issues with. The concept of the Washington Redskins is not one of racial superiority, its a concept of a organization trying to win games and make money. The Washington Redskins represent a football team, the UNCF and NAACP represent minorities, yet, you are concerned about what they call themselves. To me it's a superficial argument. I do not understand why people care so much about these types of issues.
We fundamentally disagree on the issue. I do appreciate your consistent logic in wanting to change names of everything offensive but I think you are wasting your time.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So you want to correct a historical mistake with a name change of the football team. Just another example of you wanting to punish other people for what other people did. It does not matter to you that by and large most people associate the team name with a team name and not as a racial slur.
I do not buy into the argument that we should repeat the same mistakes we did yesterday. I also do not buy we should change something due to something being wrong 80 years ago. Its like the people arguing for us to leave Iraq because it was wrong to go there in the first place. Its being naive to the fact that entire question has changed.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
For an assortment of reasons which, because the Washington Redskins and the Native American community are not a group of friends, are not relevant to this thread.
I don't have to care "so much" in order to say, when my opinion is directly asked, that yeah it's an inappropriate term and they should change it. Yes, there is a mountain of more pressing issues in this screwed-up world, but they don't make the name not inappropriate. People are being tortured to death in North Korean prison camps, but if I step on your toes, I've still breached our common standards of respect, and ought to apologize and endeavor not to do it again in the future. We don't have to make a huge earth-shaking deal out of it to acknowledge its wrongness.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.