- This topic has 434 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It’s so easy to get their panties in a bunch, those who eschew logic, history, facts, results, and reason for feelings and intent.
It’s so easy to get their panties in a bunch, those who eschew logic, history, facts, results, and reason for feelings and intent.
Ironic.
It’s “Hail to the Redskins”, not “Go to Hell, Redskins”.
The Washington Wizards used to be the Bullets because the name was too brutal in a city plagued with violent crime. Maybe some social scientists thought there was a correlation, nice try. Then just when Michael Moore starts praising the franchise, Agent Zero Brains brings a freaking armory with him to the gym. That’s how karma works.
If the Redskins change their mascot, I predict even more sports/tribal tensions, instead of less.
“Ironic”
Exactly the response I expected, to the word. You’re smug narrow view blinds you from the bigger picture.
Who said Fighting Sioux is offensive?
The NCAA did. And as of now, the University of North Dakota has no official mascot because of it.
Who has ever claimed ‘Warriors’ is offensive?
Marquette did, when they changed from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in the 90s.
This isn’t a new controversy, just the highest profile.
“Ironic”
Exactly the response I expected, to the word. You’re smug narrow view blinds you from the bigger picture.
Ironic.
The NCAA did. And as of now, the University of North Dakota has no official mascot because of it.
Marquette did, when they changed from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in the 90s.
This isn’t a new controversy, just the highest profile.
Good information, thanks for clarifying which Warriors and which Fighting Sioux we’re talking about.
Marquette and UND occupy very little of my mental space, so I never would have found that without clarification.
What are you even talking about?
Has anyone complained about any of those things?
It’s hilarious that you think “Redskins” is a term of honor and respect, when we’ve already established no one would use it to refer to a Native American person.
And yes, the name “Redskins” does refer to Native American people.
The Navajo use it for their High Schools apparently.
The Navajo use it for their High Schools apparently.
I understand that. The NFL football team isn’t associated with Native Americans in any way, other than the name and some half ass organization Dan Snyder created.
Does anyone disagree that in this country, at this time, there are words it’s more acceptable for one group to use than another?
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
The Navajo use it for their High Schools apparently.I understand that. The NFL football team isn’t associated with Native Americans in any way, other than the name and some half ass organization Dan Snyder created.
Does anyone disagree that in this country, at this time, there are words it’s more acceptable for one group to use than another?
I disagree with that, but I regretfully acknowledge some feel that way. Most I would like to think feel we should move towards equality and not “Balkanization” in this country across cultural lines. For national unity’s sake.
I disagree with that, but I regretfully acknowledge some feel that way. Most I would like to think feel we should move towards equality and not “Balkanization” in this country across cultural lines. For national unity’s sake.
Without getting into free speech, because really, this isn’t a free speech issue, do you agree that words exist that shouldn’t be said?
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
I disagree with that, but I regretfully acknowledge some feel that way. Most I would like to think feel we should move towards equality and not “Balkanization” in this country across cultural lines. For national unity’s sake.Without getting into free speech, because really, this isn’t a free speech issue, do you agree that words exist that shouldn’t be said?
Okay, within the context of a “polite society” or in the vicinity of women and/or children, sure. I can agree with that.
Okay, within the context of a “polite society” or in the vicinity of women and/or children, sure. I can agree with that.
What’s the criteria for a word that shouldn’t be said?
What differentiates a word that is OK from a word that isn’t?
I think the whole kerfuffle is rather silly, especially when juxtaposed against issues that truly harm Native Americans, like the denial of private property rights on reservations and their abysmal federally managed health care (of which ‘annual’ funding usually runs out after 6 months) .
My ire wasn’t raised until the involvement of the Feds and their unilateral decision on what is ‘offensive’ to justify what I consider an illegal action and dangerous precedent. Was this a trial balloon?
This is the same government run and administered by individuals who consider it settled ‘fact’ the conservatives hate the poor, the Tea Party is racist, those who oppose the President do so because of his skin color, and that CO2 is a toxin that they have absolute power to regulate and manage.
The government’s prime and most basic purpose is to protect the rights and property of its citizens. Trademarks are a mechanism created to protect intellectual property.
In this case, not only is the government using a unilateral determination of what is offensive to abdicate their most basic responsibility of protecting property, but it is publicly denouncing the right to that property based on ‘feelings’, real or not, justified or not.
Dangerous. Very dangerous.
This administration does NOT respect the first amendment, private property, and the rule of law. I am not shocked by anything at all they do at this point. It is rule by a total cult of personality at this point. Thank God the Supreme Court is starting to find it’s spine.
The conflating of NCAA rules with a trademark decision, the treatment of the government as a monolithic entity, and the assertion that this president has done anything unprecedented is disturbing.
…and the assertion that this president has done anything unprecedented is disturbing.
I know you often engage in discussions here without first informing yourself, apparently, this is yet another example.
SCOTUS and its unprecedented full dozen 9-0 decisions against the current President for his over reach of authority and disregard for existing law disagrees with you.
This will be yet another, if Snyder pursues it.
But you know what they say about opinions.
The conflating of NCAA rules with a trademark decision
If you fail to see the relation, and that the two are simply different fronts of the same movement, then I owe you an apology. I didn’t realize what I was dealing with. You should be commended for how far you’ve progressed. Congratulations.
I see you continue to take the high road.
You talk big, but provide vanishingly little in the way of logical reasoning.
Are you referring to the recent recess appointments decision?
If so, recess appointments are not new or unprecedented, try again.
If I were asked if you might get the point before I posted it…
I woulda said, “I doubt it.”
Think, man.
The problem is his ability to interpret the indeciferable.
I find it highly comical that a poster who states he does not care if he is offensive cares so much that other are offended by a football team name.
- I Find the user name “pakfanistan” offensive. It mocks an entire ethnic group, and possibly a country.
Can the mods please look into this and get the insensitive twit that uses it to change it.
That is an interesting point. That user name is just as offensive as the tema name.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
