I didn't say I was a Native, did I? I mentioned a small amount of Indian ancestry, just to have it out there as a point to tie myself personally to this.
I have a small amount of time right now, but as I was saying this is exactly why I called you out. You aren't tied to this personally at all. Instead you're insinuating that you are Native and not offended.
You don't use those words exactly, it's insinuated in your argument; "Hey well I have some NA in my family tree, so I too am personally tied to this because I'm also NA"
You're not Native American and you don't have any ties to this.
I mentioned my Romanian/Czech/Polish heritage because that IS the majority of me and to show as I said that I've heard so called slurs about those ethnic groups and didn't care. That is the true place of how I identify with this.
This is not about ethnicity, it's about race. There's a difference in that you can be Native American (race) but not the same ethnic group (Ojibwe, Cherokee, etc.)
Frankly, I think there's a huge difference when one race is standing at the top shouting down racial slurs at the other races at the bottom.
If someone DOES use a slur against you, are you automatically obligated to respond to it or have a strong feeling against it? Nope.
Perhaps we should try BlinkingSpirit's experiment. Perhaps I could write my next response to you with all kinds of insults and profanity and if you have strong feelings about it and feel the need to respond to it, we can consider your theory falsified. Should we try this experiment?
It does matter if it was willful, moreso if it was malicious. You're the one who wants to discount polls and now discount premise of intent and judge this solely on your racism kick. Crying racism is the new crying wolf.
It isn't a racism kick. READ this thread, we've proven that the term 'redskin' is a racial slur when used in the context of referencing a Native American (it doesn't matter if you're referring to all Natives generally or a specific Native), which is exactly what the Washington Redskins are doing.
...and Billy, I don't feel the need to respond to you because you have added nothing new to your arguments. You keep arguing in circles over and over again. Every point you've brought up is a rehashing of the same arguments you've been using months ago and each one has been dealt with and rebutted ad nauseam. When you add something new, I'll respond to it.
You're more than welcome to try the experiment, go right ahead.
My ties to this are specifically American, not so much on the race/ethnicity basis as you claimed. I'm personally not motivated by or have no overwhelming feelings except a general exhaustion at having to PC everything if even 1 person goes into an uproar about it.
Changing the name because it has some negative past is no different than those people who want to whitewash holidays, celebrations and names because of the same reason, regardless of why there's negativity attached. The level of unreasonableness tends to vary from the seemingly reasonable to the utterly absurd but at the end of the day it's all part and parcel of the same sterilizing so no one is ever offended deal.
So when Indians refer to themselves as the Red Man, that's racist too? Or this is your place to note its use is sly derisiveness?
By the by, the only one that CAN change it is the owner. The only thing you and supporters of such can do is boycott the team and their merchandise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
and Billy, I don't feel the need to respond to you because you have added nothing new to your arguments. You keep arguing in circles over and over again. Every point you've brought up is a rehashing of the same arguments you've been using months ago and each one has been dealt with and rebutted ad nauseam. When you add something new, I'll respond to it.
Who says I wanted a response from you? I was pointing out how wrong blinking sprit is about the NCAACP and UNCF not being analogous using your words.
It does not matter whether or not it is willful or not. If the organazation was called the N.A.A. Colored P. it would still be racist independant of whether they meant it or not.
Considering the words is a racist slur and everything. Again, I'm not talking to you, I was talking to BS using same your tried and failed argument.
It also pisses me off when I see non-native americans speaking on behalf of native americans.
So it stands to reason you would be pissed off at BlinkingSpirit and others who have spoke for Native Americans in this thread? Right? It's more likely you are pissed off at people who speak for Native Americans that disagrees with your opinion. I have yet to see you be critical of ANY non-Native Americans in this thread who have stated they are aware of native americans who are offended. In other words, if they are on your side of the argument they get a pass when they speak for NA's. Right?
My ties to this are specifically American, not so much on the race/ethnicity basis as you claimed.
I didn't claim anything, I knew exactly where you were going and then you went there anyway:
Quote from Fresh Prince O"Baudelaire »
I mentioned a small amount of Indian ancestry, just to have it out there as a point to tie myself personally to this.
'This' being the topic of discussion, the Washington Redskins using a racist name. Don't double back now.
Quote from Fresh Prince O"Baudelaire »
I'm personally not motivated by or have no overwhelming feelings except a general exhaustion at having to PC everything if even 1 person goes into an uproar about it.
As Blinking Spirit pointed out earlier, we are not asking you to PC everything. We are judging things on a case by case basis and in particular this topic.
We've gone to great lengths in this thread to prove our point(s). That's how I know you haven't read the thread, because all of the points you've brought up have already been discussed in this very thread.
Quote from Fresh Prince O"Baudelaire »
Changing the name because it has some negative past is no different than those people who want to whitewash holidays, celebrations and names because of the same reason, regardless of why there's negativity attached.
Do you understand that this is a racial slur that we are talking about? Do you understand that there are Natives who in this very thread have had it used as a racial slur against them?
No sir, etymology matters. Using racial slurs dehumanizes and puts down people of that race. That's why we don't use racial slurs in polite language in the first place.
This has nothing to do with saying happy holidays over merry Christmas and it's not even close to the same kind of thing. This thread only covers one specific topic, not all of these red herrings that you are trying to bring into the conversation.
Quote from Fresh Prince O"Baudelaire »
The level of unreasonableness tends to vary from the seemingly reasonable to the utterly absurd but at the end of the day it's all part and parcel of the same sterilizing so no one is ever offended deal.
It's not unreasonable to ask that the Washington Redskins stop using a racial slur as it's team name.
I'm sick and tired of having to listen to white people tell me that it's an honor to have an NFL team use a racial slur that is used to put down people of my race down and tell me that its just a bunch of PC garbage, or that Native Americans are just a pop culture reference, or that I should just shut up because it's just another insult.
It's not PC garbage, it's bull**** that people say to perpetuate white supremacy in this country and I'm sick of it.
Quote from Fresh Prince O"Baudelaire »
So when Indians refer to themselves as the Red Man, that's racist too? Or this is your place to note its use is sly derisiveness?
Strawman, we're not talking about Native's calling themselves red, we're talking about a NFL team that is using a racial slur. That racial slur is not redman, it's redskin(s).
No it isn't racist anyway, because in that context the term is not being used by another race to dehumanize or put down another race.
Quote from Fresh Prince O"Baudelaire »
By the by, the only one that CAN change it is the owner. The only thing you and supporters of such can do is boycott the team and their merchandise.
No... really?
We can also protest, write letters, create public pressure and support.
Our argument is that the owner SHOULD change the name because it's the right thing to do, because the name is racist and racial slurs shouldn't be used as team names.
So it stands to reason you would be pissed off at BlinkingSpirit and others who have spoke for Native Americans in this thread? Right? It's more likely you are pissed off at people who speak for Native Americans that disagrees with your opinion. I have yet to see you be critical of ANY non-Native Americans in this thread who have stated they are aware of native americans who are offended. In other words, if they are on your side of the argument they get a pass when they speak for NA's. Right?
Billy...:facepalm:. BlinkingSpirit didn't say anything along the lines of '90% of Native Americans are generally okay or not okay with this name' or 'I have a Native American friend that said it's okay or not okay with this name'
What he has said is 'Native American groups & groups that represent Native Americans have said X' which is not the same thing.
Quote from Billy »
Who says I wanted a response from you? I was pointing out how wrong blinking sprit is about the NCAACP and UNCF not being analogous using your words.
Yes and that was a point that, once again, has been covered and refutted ad nauseam to you.
Once again you've done absolutely nothing but argue and continue to argue in circles while sticking your head in the sand and popping it up once in a while for air to rehash the exact same arguments you've been using the entire thread.
You've learned nothing. You've not added one single new thing. You say you understand an argument and at some points even acknowledge the point that was made to you, only to go back to the exact same argument later.
Yes and that was a point that, once again, has been covered and refutted ad nauseam to you.
You can say it's been refuted but when you say things like this:
If the organazation was called the [Insert Racist slur here] it would still be racist independant of whether they meant it or not.
You are calling the NAACP and the UNCF racist and reopen the door for an attack on your premise using this anaology. However, in the "refuted" part of the argument comes the context that supposedly irrelevant in the case of the Washinton Redskins but somehow becomes relevant for the NAACP and UNCF. Can not have it both ways buddy, sorry.
Billy...:facepalm:. BlinkingSpirit didn't say anything along the lines of '90% of Native Americans are generally okay or not okay with this name' or 'I have a Native American friend that said it's okay or not okay with this name'
What he has said is 'Native American groups & groups that represent Native Americans have said X' which is not the same thing.
Dude, you said you were pissed when non-NA's speak for NA's.
XXXX NA poll said they were not offended.
XXXX NA group said they were offended.
XXXX NA friend said they were not offend.
Again, your not pissed when non-NA's speak for NA's. You are only pissed when they speak for them when it suits you. I'm pointing this out to demonstrate the bias to which you apply your standards.
You are calling the NAACP and the UNCF racist and reopen the door for an attack on your premise. However, in the "refuted" part of the argument comes the context that supposedly irrelevant in the case of the Washinton Redskins. Can not have it both ways buddy, sorry.
No billy, once again you've already tried arguing this too and it's also been refutted ad nauseam.
I haven't called either of those things racist nor have I claimed that the term 'colored people' is racist or isn't racist (frankly that's a different debate), that was you and pretty much just you.
I have told you before that whether or not either of those things are racist is irrelevant to this topic and that your argument is nothing more than a red herring.
Once again to prove the point, lets assume that everything you say is racist, is racist. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't change the name of the washington redskins because it is also racist.
Once again, your point has been refuted by me repeating the exact same argument(s) I used before because you are arguing in circles. Move on billy. Find something new.
Quote from billydaman »
Dude, you said you were pissed when non-NA's speak for NA's.
Yeah...
Quote from billydaman »
XXXX NA poll said they were not offended.
I said all polls were bull****. Next.
Quote from billydaman »
XXXX NA group said they were offended.
Okay so a Native American group...is what billy? A group of Native Americans? Next.
Quote from billydaman »
XXXX NA friend said they were not offend.
Oh look a Non-NA speaking for a supposed NA friend that apparently doesn't have access to a computer and can't respond himself/herself and needs their white friend to go to the computer and give his/her opinion on something that strangely reflects exactly what his white friend feels about the subject.
Yes, that does piss me off.
Quote from billydaman »
Again, your not pissed when non-NA's speak for NA's. You are only pissed when they speak for them when it suits you. I'm pointing this out to demonstrate the bias to which you apply your standards.
I'm pretty sure you have your head so far in the sand that you don't even know what you're typing anymore. I'm also pretty sure that while your head is in the sand you've created a narrative that doesn't actually exist, except in your head.
I'm sure that you've also convinced yourself that me, BS, Blatch, _ , and everyone else here who has disagreed with you has concocted a conspiracy and that we're all out to get you. It just couldn't be that your points are bad and that you're wrong, no it's a conspiracy to get you because we're all just a bunch of liberal douche bags who want to put you down for speaking the truth.
I haven't called either of those things racist nor have I claimed that the term 'colored people' is racist or isn't racist (frankly that's a different debate), that was you and pretty much just you.
No, I do not think the Washington Football team name or the NAACP/UNCF have racist names.
You've set the standard that organazations should not have a racist slur for a name. You preach this standard over and over again.
It is indisputable that colored and negro are racist and are racist slurs.
You've set a standard that I dispute and you refuse to defend it. My use of UNCF and NAACP is merely an example to demonstrate the consequences for such a standard. Except, you do not want your standard to be applied, or even discussed. You expect it to the accepted unequiviocally and when showed the impact it can have, you suggest its a red herring and put your head in the sand.
Once again to prove the point, lets assume that everything you say is racist, is racist. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't change the name of the washington redskins because it is also racist.
Except you do not want to accept that context does matter. You essteinally say we should change the name of redskin potatoes/redskin football team because the name is racist. The whole point is that not that I think they are racist, its that using your standard, everything I've applied your standard to would be considered racist and I have serious issues with calling the NAACP, potatoes and other things racist, when clearly they are not. Seems you have a misunderstanding on the consequences of your standards and have no desire to address those consequenes.
Once again, your point has been refuted by me repeating the exact same argument(s) I used before because you are arguing in circles. Move on billy. Find something new.
No I'm not. Not as along as you assert "the name is racist, it needs to change" standard, I'll keep pointing out how ludicrious that standard is....
Oh look a Non-NA speaking for a supposed NA friend that apparently doesn't have access to a computer and can't respond himself/herself and needs their white friend to go to the computer and give his/her opinion on something that strangely reflects exactly what his white friend feels about the subject.
Again, you dont care about Non-NA speaking for NA's or do you in certian situations? Dude's friend opinion is no less important than yours in this dicussion. You auto dismiss it becasue it came through a white man. Do you think people of pale skin are dishonest? Please explain the need to include "white" into your statement?
I'm pretty sure you have your head so far in the sand that you don't even know what you're typing anymore. I'm also pretty sure that while your head is in the sand you've created a narrative that doesn't actually exist, except in your head.
I'm sure that you've also convinced yourself that me, BS, Blatch, _ , and everyone else here who has disagreed with you has concocted a conspiracy and that we're all out to get you.
It just couldn't be that your points are bad and that you're wrong, no it's a conspiracy to get you because we're all just a bunch of liberal douche bags who want to put you down for speaking the truth.
Seriously, you think I really care that a few people disagree with me?
EDIT: Oh, because you think polls are bull**** does not mean they are nor should they be ignored in objective discussion.
EDIT2: I think you miss that the point I'm attacking the logic and reasoning behind your opinions rather than your opinions. If the logic and reasoning is bad, the results of that logic and reasoning are invalidated regardless if they happen to be accident right or wrong, moral or immoral.
No, I do not think the Washington Football team name or the NAACP/UNCF have racist names.
Then why are you bringing up the NAACP or UNCF? If you don't think they have racist names, don't bring them up in the first place.
I have told you before that the term 'colored' may or may not be racist. I don't know if it is or isn't and quite frankly it isn't the topic of this discussion. If you want to debate that, make another thread instead of creating a red herring in this one.
I also told you before that if it IS racist, then they should also change.
Which once again we've already been over and kind of renders your following point moot:
Quote from billydaman »
You've set the standard that organazations should not have a racist slur for a name. You preach this standard over and over again.
I haven't set any standard billy. I've said one term, redskins is a racial slur that is used to refer to natives. You then asserted that the term 'colored' in the NAACP and UNCF is like totally the same thing and that somehow I'm applying my logic differently, when it's been explained to you ad nauseam over and over again that this is not the case.
I even gave you that point in two different ways and said:
A) it if they are racist it doesn't mean that the Washington Redskins still shouldn't change their name
and
B) Let's assume that the NAACP/UNCF are racist as well then they should change the name also.
There isn't a different standard being applied. You want to derail the topic by trying to point out flawed logic that isn't there. You have a narrative that's going on in the sand that surrounds your head that simply doesn't have any basis in reality to what has actually been said.
We've pointed this out to you ad nauseam and you still keep bringing it up and arguing in circles.
Quote from billydaman »
It is indisputable that colored and negro are racist and are racist slurs.
Discussed this with you already and it's been addressed. Circles billy. You're going around in circles.
Quote from billydaman »
You've set a standard that I dispute and you refuse to defend it. My use of UNCF and NAACP is merely an example to demonstrate the consequences for such a standard. Except, you do not want your standard to be applied, or even discussed. You expect it to the accepted unequiviocally and when showed the impact it can have, you suggest its a red herring and put your head in the sand.
In fact, I have discussed it with you, several times. My logic was aptly applied every single time. You've just gone around in a circle.
Quote from billydaman »
Except you do not want to accept that context does matter. You essentially say we should change the name of redskin potatoes/redskin football team because the name is racist.
First of all at no point did I ever say that we should change the name of the redskin potato. You're the one who brought the potato argument in this thread, not me. YOU.
When YOU brought up the potato argument, we clearly showed you that your argument was wrong because the potato is referring to the potato.
The Washington Redskins are not talking about potatoes. Their mascot and logo make it obvious what their team name refers to. HINT: There mascot and logos are not potatoes billy.
This point was covered and discussed with you ad nauseam. You're arguing in circles.
Quote from billydaman »
The whole point is that not that I think they are racist, its that using your standard, everything I've applied your standard to would be considered racist and I have serious issues with calling the NAACP, potatoes and other things racist, when clearly they are not. Seems you have a misunderstanding on the consequences of your standards and have no desire to address those consequenes.
No billy, you have created a standard and an argument that I haven't said. You've been saying them and you've said that me and others have been saying them. It's a narrative that you've constructed since the day you decided to post in this thread. It hasn't changed and you've been arguing in circles and haven't stopped arguing in circles.
Quote from billydaman »
No I'm not. Not as along as you assert "the name is racist, it needs to change" standard, I'll keep pointing out how ludicrious that standard is....
We haven't just asserted billy, we've gone to great lengths to explain to you the reason, logic, and why it's sound. You've got your head in the sand and refuse to listen.
Quote from billydaman »
Again, you dont care about Non-NA speaking for NA's or do you in certian situations? Dude's friend opinion is no less important than yours in this dicussion. You auto dismiss it becasue it came through a white man. Do you think people of pale skin are dishonest?
I auto dismiss it because it's second hand information that someone can just make at any point in time and make the other person say whatever they want.
Secondly, I'll be flagging this.
Quote from billydaman »
EDIT: Oh, because you think polls are bull**** does not mean they are nor should they be ignored in objective discussion.
It means that polls ALL polls, even ones that agree with me, should be taken with a grain of salt. You'll notice that I don't use them in my arguments, ever, no matter what the discussion is about.
Quote from billydaman »
EDIT2: I think you miss that the point I'm attacking the logic reasoning behind your opinions rather than your opinions.
and doing a very poor job of it.
Quote from billydaman »
If the logic and reasoning is bad, the results of that logic and reasoning are invalidated.
Yes and we've pointed out quite a number of fallacies that you've been using, which would seem to indicate that you are the one using the flawed logic here.
t does not matter whether or not it is willful or not. If the team was called the Washington n*****s it would still be racist independent of whether they meant it or not.
Quote from Foxblade »
Even if you were right, we should still change the name anyway because its still a team with a racial slur as its name.
So see, the reason you want it to change its because it's racist. The standard that you are using in your appeal for a name change is an organization should not have a racist name. However, when we apply this standard, you put in your head in the sand and say it's irrelevant. If this is the case, how can we determine if the standard is viable? You do not want to address this basic question.
I've said one term, redskins is a racial slur that is used to refer to natives
What are you talking about? You made the point the name should be changed because it's a racist term. Is this you trying to pivot away from addressing the critical flaw in your argument? No one is disputing that redskins can be considered a racist slur.
Quote from Foxblade »
In fact, I have discussed it with you, several times. My logic was aptly applied every single time. You've just gone around in a circle.
No, you keep ignoring the flawed logic in your fundamental position. The position that states the name should be changed because it use as a racist slur in some context.
We haven't just asserted billy, we've gone to great lengths to explain to you the reason, logic, and why it's sound. You've got your head in the sand and refuse to listen.
Wait, you have not set a standard that should be applied but now you have? Do you even read what you write?
Quote from Foxblade »
Secondly, I'll be flagging this.
Not surprising. What was that about a conspiracy? All I've pointed out is your bias. You say you are pissed when non-NA speak for NA's.....yet you are not pissed when people who agree with you speak for NA....seems like the race of the person who is speaking for NA's is important to you as well for some strange reason. Then you make the illogical argument that some non-NA's speaking for NA's are different than other non-NA speaking for NA' and it has to do with which NA's they are speaking for never mind your initial claim of you hating non NA speaking for NA's. If I get flagged for pointing out that inconsistency, so be it. Besides that, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you needed to interject a faceless and nameless posters race into the statement. Finally, are you pissed that I've asked or pointed out your inclusion of race in that statement? I've not attacked you. I've attacked your inclusion of race into your pissynes (sic) of people speaking for NA's. I have no idea why you would interject "white" into your statement, unless of course you have a distrust of white people, which is understandable but at some point you'll have to address that stereotype you've developed. i.e. white people passing on experience they've heard from NA's. You basically said they are not to be believed.
It means that polls ALL polls, even ones that agree with me, should be taken with a grain of salt. You'll notice that I don't use them in my arguments, ever, no matter what the discussion is about.
So what....because you dismiss them does not mean they do not have relevance.
Finally you've not addressed a single criticism and now want to call the dogs on me.....cute.
When YOU brought up the potato argument, we clearly showed you that your argument was wrong because the potato is referring to the potato.
I missed this. Just like Redskins in the context it is used refers to a football team. They are identifying themselves, they are not identifying you or anyone else only their football team. Just like the term redskin is also used to identify a type of potato. Since its used to identify themselves there is no credible argument to made that a racial superiority or inferiority being asserted. Unless you remove all logic and reason, you are flat wrong about the Washington Redskins being racist.
Show me where I was wrong about the potato? All I've ever said (and I went back and looked) was that it was a use of the word that also represented a potato. Just like Redskins also represents a football team. You've made the argument that the will or intent of its use is irrelevant since it's a racial slur and should not be used. I'm almost certain the will or intent of the Redskin potato is not racist.....but has a racist name.
True or False:
a. The name Washington Redskins is a NFL football team.
b. The name Washington Redskins is a native american.
So if the Redskins changed their mascot and logo to a potato, this whole debate would end?
This is a goalpost shift. The argument is, the redskin potato is not racist because the term is referring to a potato, not a native american just like the Washington Redskins refer to a football team, not a native american. Does what the potato looks like make it racist or not racist? Its the fact it's a potato that makes it not racist just like foxblade said..
Show me where I was wrong about the potato? All I've ever said (and I went back and looked) was that it was a use of the word that also represented a potato. Just like Redskins also represents a football team. You've made the argument that the will or intent of its use is irrelevant since it's a racial slur and should not be used. I'm almost certain the will or intent of the Redskin potato is not racist.....but has a racist name.
Except that the washington redskins clearly and obviously link themselves to native american symbols.
I can't make a basketball team called the Idaho n*****s and have a picture of an african american dude and claim it's not racist because I'm making a different use of the word which is refering to my basketball team, not the other thing, god, what are you thinking?
There used to be a paint colour called n*****r brown. It was refer to a colour of paint, in much the same way you claim the redskins refer to just a football team, not american indians in any way.
Strangely, that colour was renamed. Because it was racist as all get out.
I'm not American, so it has never really occurred to me that redskin is a racist slur (although it seems pretty obvious now I think about it). The team should change their name and you should stop making absurd arguments about it. (Oh, and: Yes, that breed of potato should be renamed. Just like the paint colour).
Billy... this exact argument has been covered already. This is not new. There are even pictures. Circles billy. Circles.
And ffs stop taking sentences and parts of sentences out of context so you can try to shove you square pegs into round holes by making me say things I did not say.
Not surprising. What was that about a conspiracy? All I've pointed out is your bias. You say you are pissed when non-NA speak for NA's.....yet you are not pissed when people who agree with you speak for NA....seems like the race of the person who is speaking for NA's is important to you as well for some strange reason. Then you make the illogical argument that some non-NA's speaking for NA's are different than other non-NA speaking for NA' and it has to do with which NA's they are speaking for never mind your initial claim of you hating non NA speaking for NA's. If I get flagged for pointing out that inconsistency, so be it. Besides that, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you needed to interject a faceless and nameless posters race into the statement. Finally, are you pissed that I've asked or pointed out your inclusion of race in that statement? I've not attacked you. I've attacked your inclusion of race into your pissynes (sic) of people speaking for NA's. I have no idea why you would interject "white" into your statement, unless of course you have a distrust of white people, which is understandable but at some point you'll have to address that stereotype you've developed. i.e. white people passing on experience they've heard from NA's. You basically said they are not to be believed.
No billy. The reason I flagged it is because the remark you made was racial. If you are a "paleskin" what does that make me billy? A "redskin"?
This is going nowhere. I am invoking the stalled debate rule between billydaman and FoxBlade. You get one final post each. (I suspect this announcement may ninja you, billy, so if it does that post doens't count as your last.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I worked at Crazy Horse memorial (http://crazyhorsememorial.org/) for a year and what I learned is that there are more white people who are pissed off about these things (saying stuff like "Don't you think a better way to honor native people would be not defacing their sacred mountains!") then there are native americans (many of whom support that project enthusiastically) who could care less. I have some Nordic ancestry should the "vikings" piss me off? The vikings were raiders, murderers, rapists, and all around brutes. Should I be upset that theres a team named after them? Does this further stereotypes about nordic people?
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.
My analysis-If there is a group of native americans who are upset about the "redskins" then they should change the team name, just like the vikings or fighting irish should change their team names, logos, etc. if those groups are upset.
And ffs stop taking sentences and parts of sentences out of context so you can try to shove you square pegs into round holes by making me say things I did not say.
No billy. The reason I flagged it is because the remark you made was racial. If you are a "paleskin" what does that make me billy? A "redskin"?
Quote from Billydaman »
Do you think people of pale skin are dishonest?
Obviously I was pointing to the complexion of white people and not calling white people a name. I guess saying someone is of dark skin would be considered racist.....
If this is not an example of someone screaming about racism when none exist, I do not know what is.
This is going nowhere. I am invoking the stalled debate rule between billydaman and FoxBlade. You get one final post each. (I suspect this announcement may ninja you, billy, so if it does that post doens't count as your last.)
My analysis-If there is a group of native americans who are upset about the "redskins" then they should change the team name, just like the vikings or fighting irish should change their team names, logos, etc. if those groups are upset.
Considering they routinely protest the name, I'd say its a safe bet that there are, in fact, Native Americans who are upset about the term.
My analysis-If there is a group of native americans who are upset about the "redskins" then they should change the team name, just like the vikings or fighting irish should change their team names, logos, etc. if those groups are upset.
Considering they routinely protest the name, I'd say its a safe bet that there are, in fact, Native Americans who are upset about the term.
In my opinion the question has to be how many people are offended by it. I could hang a flag of a dead alligator outside my house and I am sure at least 1 person somewhere would be offended by it. I am sure slaughterhouses existing offends some people... and they do have a logical reason for it. But that doesnt mean we cater to those people and remove all slaughterhouses. I would find it very interesting to know how many people in the target group are actually offended by the name. Is it a vocal minority or are the majority of Native American's actually concerned with the name of a football team.
With that said... for the case of a private business it really does not matter. People will vote with their money on whether or not they support the name. The government should stay out of it. In the case of schools having to rename though I think the approach should be to actually take time to understand how many people are actually offended by a team mascot.
It does matter if it was willful, moreso if it was malicious. You're the one who wants to discount polls and now discount premise of intent and judge this solely on your racism kick. Crying racism is the new crying wolf.
I believe it whether it's intentional or not does matter. Things change over time, word definitions and language are always changing. Something that is not offensive one day could become offensive the next day because society has changed, and I don't blame anyone for that. Language is fluid, and so are the standards of society, it happens.
However, once you realize that the perception of a word in society has changed, and you are given the opportunity to change it, and you decide not to change it, it becomes a willful choice. Now you know it's considered a racial slur and you've made the conscious decision that you're not going to change. So the original intent no longer applies.
Billy has added absolutely nothing new. He's been arguing in circles since he started posting here.
He's used the potato argument already here and it was soundly rebutted then, even with his constant denial that the term "redskin" in Washington Redskins was referring to Native Americans. There were even pictures used to prove the point.
The poll that Fluffy_Bunny and some others keep mentioning (including the team owner) that says 90% or so of Native Americans are okay with the name is crap and this has also been discussed and rebutted.
I have a poll here that indicates the exact opposite of that stupid poll some people like to keep mentioning. I haven't used it to support my opinion because as I said, polls are terrible.
Really, who cares about what people on a poll think? Majority feelings about a subject do not determine what's right and what's wrong.
Several users have also tried to say that the term "redskin" is not an offensive term in the first place, this has also been rebutted in spectacular fashion.
I disagree with him and his views, because I believe his logic and reasoning are both bad. I firmly believe that my logic is good and my reasoning is sound.
You're more than welcome to try the experiment, go right ahead.
My ties to this are specifically American, not so much on the race/ethnicity basis as you claimed. I'm personally not motivated by or have no overwhelming feelings except a general exhaustion at having to PC everything if even 1 person goes into an uproar about it.
Changing the name because it has some negative past is no different than those people who want to whitewash holidays, celebrations and names because of the same reason, regardless of why there's negativity attached. The level of unreasonableness tends to vary from the seemingly reasonable to the utterly absurd but at the end of the day it's all part and parcel of the same sterilizing so no one is ever offended deal.
So when Indians refer to themselves as the Red Man, that's racist too? Or this is your place to note its use is sly derisiveness?
By the by, the only one that CAN change it is the owner. The only thing you and supporters of such can do is boycott the team and their merchandise.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Who says I wanted a response from you? I was pointing out how wrong blinking sprit is about the NCAACP and UNCF not being analogous using your words.
Considering the words is a racist slur and everything. Again, I'm not talking to you, I was talking to BS using same your tried and failed argument.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So it stands to reason you would be pissed off at BlinkingSpirit and others who have spoke for Native Americans in this thread? Right? It's more likely you are pissed off at people who speak for Native Americans that disagrees with your opinion. I have yet to see you be critical of ANY non-Native Americans in this thread who have stated they are aware of native americans who are offended. In other words, if they are on your side of the argument they get a pass when they speak for NA's. Right?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I didn't claim anything, I knew exactly where you were going and then you went there anyway:
'This' being the topic of discussion, the Washington Redskins using a racist name. Don't double back now.
As Blinking Spirit pointed out earlier, we are not asking you to PC everything. We are judging things on a case by case basis and in particular this topic.
We've gone to great lengths in this thread to prove our point(s). That's how I know you haven't read the thread, because all of the points you've brought up have already been discussed in this very thread.
Do you understand that this is a racial slur that we are talking about? Do you understand that there are Natives who in this very thread have had it used as a racial slur against them?
No sir, etymology matters. Using racial slurs dehumanizes and puts down people of that race. That's why we don't use racial slurs in polite language in the first place.
This has nothing to do with saying happy holidays over merry Christmas and it's not even close to the same kind of thing. This thread only covers one specific topic, not all of these red herrings that you are trying to bring into the conversation.
It's not unreasonable to ask that the Washington Redskins stop using a racial slur as it's team name.
I'm sick and tired of having to listen to white people tell me that it's an honor to have an NFL team use a racial slur that is used to put down people of my race down and tell me that its just a bunch of PC garbage, or that Native Americans are just a pop culture reference, or that I should just shut up because it's just another insult.
It's not PC garbage, it's bull**** that people say to perpetuate white supremacy in this country and I'm sick of it.
Strawman, we're not talking about Native's calling themselves red, we're talking about a NFL team that is using a racial slur. That racial slur is not redman, it's redskin(s).
No it isn't racist anyway, because in that context the term is not being used by another race to dehumanize or put down another race.
No... really?
We can also protest, write letters, create public pressure and support.
Our argument is that the owner SHOULD change the name because it's the right thing to do, because the name is racist and racial slurs shouldn't be used as team names.
Billy...:facepalm:. BlinkingSpirit didn't say anything along the lines of '90% of Native Americans are generally okay or not okay with this name' or 'I have a Native American friend that said it's okay or not okay with this name'
What he has said is 'Native American groups & groups that represent Native Americans have said X' which is not the same thing.
Yes and that was a point that, once again, has been covered and refutted ad nauseam to you.
Once again you've done absolutely nothing but argue and continue to argue in circles while sticking your head in the sand and popping it up once in a while for air to rehash the exact same arguments you've been using the entire thread.
You've learned nothing. You've not added one single new thing. You say you understand an argument and at some points even acknowledge the point that was made to you, only to go back to the exact same argument later.
You can say it's been refuted but when you say things like this:
You are calling the NAACP and the UNCF racist and reopen the door for an attack on your premise using this anaology. However, in the "refuted" part of the argument comes the context that supposedly irrelevant in the case of the Washinton Redskins but somehow becomes relevant for the NAACP and UNCF. Can not have it both ways buddy, sorry.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Dude, you said you were pissed when non-NA's speak for NA's.
XXXX NA poll said they were not offended.
XXXX NA group said they were offended.
XXXX NA friend said they were not offend.
Again, your not pissed when non-NA's speak for NA's. You are only pissed when they speak for them when it suits you. I'm pointing this out to demonstrate the bias to which you apply your standards.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No billy, once again you've already tried arguing this too and it's also been refutted ad nauseam.
I haven't called either of those things racist nor have I claimed that the term 'colored people' is racist or isn't racist (frankly that's a different debate), that was you and pretty much just you.
I have told you before that whether or not either of those things are racist is irrelevant to this topic and that your argument is nothing more than a red herring.
Once again to prove the point, lets assume that everything you say is racist, is racist. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't change the name of the washington redskins because it is also racist.
Once again, your point has been refuted by me repeating the exact same argument(s) I used before because you are arguing in circles. Move on billy. Find something new.
Yeah...
I said all polls were bull****. Next.
Okay so a Native American group...is what billy? A group of Native Americans? Next.
Oh look a Non-NA speaking for a supposed NA friend that apparently doesn't have access to a computer and can't respond himself/herself and needs their white friend to go to the computer and give his/her opinion on something that strangely reflects exactly what his white friend feels about the subject.
Yes, that does piss me off.
I'm pretty sure you have your head so far in the sand that you don't even know what you're typing anymore. I'm also pretty sure that while your head is in the sand you've created a narrative that doesn't actually exist, except in your head.
I'm sure that you've also convinced yourself that me, BS, Blatch, _ , and everyone else here who has disagreed with you has concocted a conspiracy and that we're all out to get you. It just couldn't be that your points are bad and that you're wrong, no it's a conspiracy to get you because we're all just a bunch of liberal douche bags who want to put you down for speaking the truth.
No, I do not think the Washington Football team name or the NAACP/UNCF have racist names.
You've set the standard that organazations should not have a racist slur for a name. You preach this standard over and over again.
It is indisputable that colored and negro are racist and are racist slurs.
You've set a standard that I dispute and you refuse to defend it. My use of UNCF and NAACP is merely an example to demonstrate the consequences for such a standard. Except, you do not want your standard to be applied, or even discussed. You expect it to the accepted unequiviocally and when showed the impact it can have, you suggest its a red herring and put your head in the sand.
Except you do not want to accept that context does matter. You essteinally say we should change the name of redskin potatoes/redskin football team because the name is racist. The whole point is that not that I think they are racist, its that using your standard, everything I've applied your standard to would be considered racist and I have serious issues with calling the NAACP, potatoes and other things racist, when clearly they are not. Seems you have a misunderstanding on the consequences of your standards and have no desire to address those consequenes.
No I'm not. Not as along as you assert "the name is racist, it needs to change" standard, I'll keep pointing out how ludicrious that standard is....
Again, you dont care about Non-NA speaking for NA's or do you in certian situations? Dude's friend opinion is no less important than yours in this dicussion. You auto dismiss it becasue it came through a white man. Do you think people of pale skin are dishonest? Please explain the need to include "white" into your statement?
Seriously, you think I really care that a few people disagree with me?
EDIT: Oh, because you think polls are bull**** does not mean they are nor should they be ignored in objective discussion.
EDIT2: I think you miss that the point I'm attacking the logic and reasoning behind your opinions rather than your opinions. If the logic and reasoning is bad, the results of that logic and reasoning are invalidated regardless if they happen to be accident right or wrong, moral or immoral.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Then why are you bringing up the NAACP or UNCF? If you don't think they have racist names, don't bring them up in the first place.
I have told you before that the term 'colored' may or may not be racist. I don't know if it is or isn't and quite frankly it isn't the topic of this discussion. If you want to debate that, make another thread instead of creating a red herring in this one.
I also told you before that if it IS racist, then they should also change.
Which once again we've already been over and kind of renders your following point moot:
I haven't set any standard billy. I've said one term, redskins is a racial slur that is used to refer to natives. You then asserted that the term 'colored' in the NAACP and UNCF is like totally the same thing and that somehow I'm applying my logic differently, when it's been explained to you ad nauseam over and over again that this is not the case.
I even gave you that point in two different ways and said:
A) it if they are racist it doesn't mean that the Washington Redskins still shouldn't change their name
and
B) Let's assume that the NAACP/UNCF are racist as well then they should change the name also.
There isn't a different standard being applied. You want to derail the topic by trying to point out flawed logic that isn't there. You have a narrative that's going on in the sand that surrounds your head that simply doesn't have any basis in reality to what has actually been said.
We've pointed this out to you ad nauseam and you still keep bringing it up and arguing in circles.
Discussed this with you already and it's been addressed. Circles billy. You're going around in circles.
In fact, I have discussed it with you, several times. My logic was aptly applied every single time. You've just gone around in a circle.
First of all at no point did I ever say that we should change the name of the redskin potato. You're the one who brought the potato argument in this thread, not me. YOU.
When YOU brought up the potato argument, we clearly showed you that your argument was wrong because the potato is referring to the potato.
The Washington Redskins are not talking about potatoes. Their mascot and logo make it obvious what their team name refers to. HINT: There mascot and logos are not potatoes billy.
This point was covered and discussed with you ad nauseam. You're arguing in circles.
No billy, you have created a standard and an argument that I haven't said. You've been saying them and you've said that me and others have been saying them. It's a narrative that you've constructed since the day you decided to post in this thread. It hasn't changed and you've been arguing in circles and haven't stopped arguing in circles.
We haven't just asserted billy, we've gone to great lengths to explain to you the reason, logic, and why it's sound. You've got your head in the sand and refuse to listen.
I auto dismiss it because it's second hand information that someone can just make at any point in time and make the other person say whatever they want.
Secondly, I'll be flagging this.
It means that polls ALL polls, even ones that agree with me, should be taken with a grain of salt. You'll notice that I don't use them in my arguments, ever, no matter what the discussion is about.
and doing a very poor job of it.
Yes and we've pointed out quite a number of fallacies that you've been using, which would seem to indicate that you are the one using the flawed logic here.
Read my previous post.
Yes, you have, you've asserted this:
So see, the reason you want it to change its because it's racist. The standard that you are using in your appeal for a name change is an organization should not have a racist name. However, when we apply this standard, you put in your head in the sand and say it's irrelevant. If this is the case, how can we determine if the standard is viable? You do not want to address this basic question.
What are you talking about? You made the point the name should be changed because it's a racist term. Is this you trying to pivot away from addressing the critical flaw in your argument? No one is disputing that redskins can be considered a racist slur.
No, you keep ignoring the flawed logic in your fundamental position. The position that states the name should be changed because it use as a racist slur in some context.
Wait, you have not set a standard that should be applied but now you have? Do you even read what you write?
Not surprising. What was that about a conspiracy? All I've pointed out is your bias. You say you are pissed when non-NA speak for NA's.....yet you are not pissed when people who agree with you speak for NA....seems like the race of the person who is speaking for NA's is important to you as well for some strange reason. Then you make the illogical argument that some non-NA's speaking for NA's are different than other non-NA speaking for NA' and it has to do with which NA's they are speaking for never mind your initial claim of you hating non NA speaking for NA's. If I get flagged for pointing out that inconsistency, so be it. Besides that, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you needed to interject a faceless and nameless posters race into the statement. Finally, are you pissed that I've asked or pointed out your inclusion of race in that statement? I've not attacked you. I've attacked your inclusion of race into your pissynes (sic) of people speaking for NA's. I have no idea why you would interject "white" into your statement, unless of course you have a distrust of white people, which is understandable but at some point you'll have to address that stereotype you've developed. i.e. white people passing on experience they've heard from NA's. You basically said they are not to be believed.
So what....because you dismiss them does not mean they do not have relevance.
Finally you've not addressed a single criticism and now want to call the dogs on me.....cute.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I missed this. Just like Redskins in the context it is used refers to a football team. They are identifying themselves, they are not identifying you or anyone else only their football team. Just like the term redskin is also used to identify a type of potato. Since its used to identify themselves there is no credible argument to made that a racial superiority or inferiority being asserted. Unless you remove all logic and reason, you are flat wrong about the Washington Redskins being racist.
Show me where I was wrong about the potato? All I've ever said (and I went back and looked) was that it was a use of the word that also represented a potato. Just like Redskins also represents a football team. You've made the argument that the will or intent of its use is irrelevant since it's a racial slur and should not be used. I'm almost certain the will or intent of the Redskin potato is not racist.....but has a racist name.
True or False:
a. The name Washington Redskins is a NFL football team.
b. The name Washington Redskins is a native american.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
This is a goalpost shift. The argument is, the redskin potato is not racist because the term is referring to a potato, not a native american just like the Washington Redskins refer to a football team, not a native american. Does what the potato looks like make it racist or not racist? Its the fact it's a potato that makes it not racist just like foxblade said..
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Except that the washington redskins clearly and obviously link themselves to native american symbols.
I can't make a basketball team called the Idaho n*****s and have a picture of an african american dude and claim it's not racist because I'm making a different use of the word which is refering to my basketball team, not the other thing, god, what are you thinking?
There used to be a paint colour called n*****r brown. It was refer to a colour of paint, in much the same way you claim the redskins refer to just a football team, not american indians in any way.
Strangely, that colour was renamed. Because it was racist as all get out.
I'm not American, so it has never really occurred to me that redskin is a racist slur (although it seems pretty obvious now I think about it). The team should change their name and you should stop making absurd arguments about it. (Oh, and: Yes, that breed of potato should be renamed. Just like the paint colour).
And ffs stop taking sentences and parts of sentences out of context so you can try to shove you square pegs into round holes by making me say things I did not say.
No billy. The reason I flagged it is because the remark you made was racial. If you are a "paleskin" what does that make me billy? A "redskin"?
Sorry for the double post but I am on my phone.
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.
My analysis-If there is a group of native americans who are upset about the "redskins" then they should change the team name, just like the vikings or fighting irish should change their team names, logos, etc. if those groups are upset.
Hmmmm....Interesting.
Obviously I was pointing to the complexion of white people and not calling white people a name. I guess saying someone is of dark skin would be considered racist.....
If this is not an example of someone screaming about racism when none exist, I do not know what is.
I saw it. thankyou.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Considering they routinely protest the name, I'd say its a safe bet that there are, in fact, Native Americans who are upset about the term.
In my opinion the question has to be how many people are offended by it. I could hang a flag of a dead alligator outside my house and I am sure at least 1 person somewhere would be offended by it. I am sure slaughterhouses existing offends some people... and they do have a logical reason for it. But that doesnt mean we cater to those people and remove all slaughterhouses. I would find it very interesting to know how many people in the target group are actually offended by the name. Is it a vocal minority or are the majority of Native American's actually concerned with the name of a football team.
With that said... for the case of a private business it really does not matter. People will vote with their money on whether or not they support the name. The government should stay out of it. In the case of schools having to rename though I think the approach should be to actually take time to understand how many people are actually offended by a team mascot.
I believe it whether it's intentional or not does matter. Things change over time, word definitions and language are always changing. Something that is not offensive one day could become offensive the next day because society has changed, and I don't blame anyone for that. Language is fluid, and so are the standards of society, it happens.
However, once you realize that the perception of a word in society has changed, and you are given the opportunity to change it, and you decide not to change it, it becomes a willful choice. Now you know it's considered a racial slur and you've made the conscious decision that you're not going to change. So the original intent no longer applies.
He's used the potato argument already here and it was soundly rebutted then, even with his constant denial that the term "redskin" in Washington Redskins was referring to Native Americans. There were even pictures used to prove the point.
He's also tried to use the NAACP/UNCF is also racist, you're playing favs! argument too. Which was also rebutted several times over.
The poll that Fluffy_Bunny and some others keep mentioning (including the team owner) that says 90% or so of Native Americans are okay with the name is crap and this has also been discussed and rebutted.
However, POLLS in general are just terrible.
I have a poll here that indicates the exact opposite of that stupid poll some people like to keep mentioning. I haven't used it to support my opinion because as I said, polls are terrible.
Really, who cares about what people on a poll think? Majority feelings about a subject do not determine what's right and what's wrong.
Several users have also tried to say that the term "redskin" is not an offensive term in the first place, this has also been rebutted in spectacular fashion.
Despite what billy may think, I'm not disagreeing with him because I want special treatment.
I disagree with him and his views, because I believe his logic and reasoning are both bad. I firmly believe that my logic is good and my reasoning is sound.