First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Washiington Redskins Trademark
588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/14

ninjajake12 wrote:

Overall, we live in an overly-sensitive world where anyone and everyone seems to be offended by something. It's a way for people (or a group of people) to feel relevant in society; in order to shout their displeasure on something to change it. It makes them feel like they've accomplished something in life and can feel an inner-victory in their actions. This is not solely about the Redskins, but about the pointless things I hear about every other day, about how 'offensive' something was/is. I'm just tired of it in general. You would think they would have something else better to do in their lives than fight an NFL team to change its name.

Well, whether the name changes or not doesn't really matter to me. But we live in a serious world where you can barely joke or make remarks in public without someone calling foul or being offended. It's like having the FCC around at all times.


Its a derogatory term you moron. Saying that this is just some topic of people being overly-sensitive is incredibly stupid. That's like saying racial slurs are something everyone should freely use.
Posted 6/19/14
I absolutely HATE the redskins, but I don't want to have to see them forced to change their identity over some bullshit, belligerent minority. The truth is that most native americans aren't offended by it, while a sizable group take pride in it. I could understand if this somehow portrayed native americans in a negative light, but it doesn't.
47864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/14 , edited 6/19/14

SoldierSangria wrote:

Political Correctness can kiss my ass.

Moving on.

In this particular case, this was not being used in a racist way at all. There are plenty of other names and trademarks kept everywhere, yet this was signaled out, and is an abuse of power. This was just a name and a logo not being used in a derogatory way.

Inspired by this nonsense going on I'd like to further state that hiding something does not diminish the problem. Covering it up lets the problem escalate and thrive in the shadows. Facing whatever it is head on instead of covering it up and trying to make it "nicer" like how it happens in society pretty much globally solves nothing.

Political correctness is not being polite. It is a way of lying, it is a deception, it is false mannerisms and a false front and it is another right being taken away from people and from society. By inculcating this in society, the government is just telling you what they want you to do, telling you to act the way they think is best, telling you to think the way they think. This is freedom with a blindfold and a hand guiding you to where they want you to go. This is a form of control under the guise of a pretty phrase.

There are many things like this happening worldwide in society today. Do not let this control you. Always speak your mind.




Please note that serial killing, rape, and child molestation are all politically incorrect, and that being a kind, reasonable person is often both the politically and generally correct solution. Just because an action is taken to reduce offensiveness doesn't imply that it's a lie, particularly when the problem is only a consideration of what people like. Let's take the "Redskins problem" as an example:

Although one could make the argument that this is an ethical issue, ultimately, I'd probably disagree. Ultimately, this is a problem whose only variable is "which people are more pissed off?" On the one side, we have a party clinging to tradition and cheap pride (to A WORD, no less -- lol), and on the other side, a party clinging to political correctness and cheap suffering. Here's the thing that neither of the parties realize: IT'S A FUCKING WORD. I really don't understand sports fans and why they think their team is somehow inherently worth their support, but more centrally, I don't understand why it matters what you call something. If everyone agrees to rename "donuts," and we all start referring to them as "hole-cakes" from now on, I give exactly no shits. It's a word. Believe it or not, keeping the name "Redskins" is also a matter of political correctness -- which one is more "politically correct" is determined by which party will be more pissed off, because believe it or not, that's what politics is.

So to you, as a collective, stop bitching about political correctness -- this is a political problem, and obviously, we want to find the correct solution. Thus, we want political correctness. To be clear though, I'm not a football fan or a Native American -- I really don't give a shit what they call themselves. What I really do give a shit about is the systematic preaching of bullshit, and I don't see any reason to insult something for being politically correct. In the absence of an absolute sense of correctness, we need to evaluate correctness in terms of an end, and I don't see any reason why "politics" should be less important than "tradition," or "pride," or "finance," or even "morality." If your goal is politics, then the best option will be politically correct. It's as simple as that.
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/14 , edited 6/19/14

BluTrev wrote:


ninjajake12 wrote:

Overall, we live in an overly-sensitive world where anyone and everyone seems to be offended by something. It's a way for people (or a group of people) to feel relevant in society; in order to shout their displeasure on something to change it. It makes them feel like they've accomplished something in life and can feel an inner-victory in their actions. This is not solely about the Redskins, but about the pointless things I hear about every other day, about how 'offensive' something was/is. I'm just tired of it in general. You would think they would have something else better to do in their lives than fight an NFL team to change its name.

Well, whether the name changes or not doesn't really matter to me. But we live in a serious world where you can barely joke or make remarks in public without someone calling foul or being offended. It's like having the FCC around at all times.


Its a derogatory term you moron. Saying that this is just some topic of people being overly-sensitive is incredibly stupid. That's like saying racial slurs are something everyone should freely use.


First off, to the final point: that's not what he said at all. Keep putting words into other people's mouths.

As for your first post where you think that because Native Americans think it is racist then it must be racist. The implication here is that perception is somehow the determinate of truth. I'm part Native American. I don't think it is racist. So then am I automatically correct by virtue of being Native American? Or is it because of large democratic Native American groups have claimed it to be racist, that it is then racist? If you claim the latter, then would you then be as bold as to really claim that majorities determine what is and what isn't truth? That sounds flimsy to me.

Would it be racist to go up to a Native American today and call them a red skin though? Absolutely. But is the term being used in a racist way for the name of a football team? Clearly it is not. Is it built upon a stereotype of fierce Indian warriors? Probably.

How would I even figure that the term Red Skins isn't being used in a racist way for the football team's name? It's pretty simple honestly. Why the hell would any team call itself a derogatory word? That's like saying a team five decades ago seriously would have considered naming itself the N-word. Even if they were white supremacists themselves back then, I would have a hard time even imagining it. It's such a ridiculous notion.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what the hell the Native American organizations say. They can scream all they want. They don't hold the monopoly on truth. And to say that ONLY they have the right to determine what is and isn't racist on this matter is akin to post-modernist relativistic drivel.

P.S. I'm a Saints fan. Gotta throw that out there. WHO DAT?
588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/14

Rohzek wrote:


BluTrev wrote:


ninjajake12 wrote:

Overall, we live in an overly-sensitive world where anyone and everyone seems to be offended by something. It's a way for people (or a group of people) to feel relevant in society; in order to shout their displeasure on something to change it. It makes them feel like they've accomplished something in life and can feel an inner-victory in their actions. This is not solely about the Redskins, but about the pointless things I hear about every other day, about how 'offensive' something was/is. I'm just tired of it in general. You would think they would have something else better to do in their lives than fight an NFL team to change its name.

Well, whether the name changes or not doesn't really matter to me. But we live in a serious world where you can barely joke or make remarks in public without someone calling foul or being offended. It's like having the FCC around at all times.


Its a derogatory term you moron. Saying that this is just some topic of people being overly-sensitive is incredibly stupid. That's like saying racial slurs are something everyone should freely use.


First off, to the final point: that's not what he said at all. Keep putting words into other people's mouths.

As for your first post where you think that because Native Americans think it is racist then it must be racist. The implication here is that perception is somehow the determinate of truth. I'm part Native American. I don't think it is racist. So then am I automatically correct by virtue of being Native American? Or is it because of large democratic Native American groups have claimed it to be racist, that it is then racist? If you claim the latter, then would you then be as bold as to really claim that majorities determine what is and what isn't truth? That sounds flimsy to me.

Would it be racist to go up to a Native American today and call them a red skin though? Absolutely. But is the term being used in a racist way for the name of a football team? Clearly it is not. Is it built upon a stereotype of fierce Indian warriors? Probably.

How would I even figure that the term Red Skins isn't being used in a racist way for the football team's name? It's pretty simple honestly. Why the hell would any team call itself a derogatory word? That's like saying a team five decades ago seriously would have considered naming itself the N-word. Even if they were white supremacists themselves back then, I would have a hard time even imagining it. It's such a ridiculous notion.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what the hell the Native American organizations say. They can scream all they want. They don't hold the monopoly on truth. And to say that ONLY they have the right to determine what is and isn't racist on this matter is akin to post-modernist relativistic drivel.

P.S. I'm a Saints fan. Gotta throw that out there. WHO DAT?


Tell me this, is the word "nigger" racist? Because there are many people who feel it isn't, and by your logic, the majority holds no real bearing on whether it is or not.
If the term isn't used in a racist way, does that make it alright? No, imagine wearing a shirt with the word "cracker" on it, with a picture of a white person.
If you honestly have a difficult time believing a team would be called a derogatory word, then you must not know much about the history of this country.
1327 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 6/19/14
I wonder what happend to the Detroit blackskins
10135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/14
I'm so glad we live in a country that the biggest problem is the name of a sports team. Never mind that our elected representatives are complete imbeciles. If it stands, I believe that the name should be changed to the Washington Buffoons and their logo should be a caricature of Harry Reid. Or maybe they could satisfy the PC police by retaining the name Redskins and changing their logo to either a peanut or a potato.

As a side note, why is a football team named Redskins so offensive while a town in California named Squaw Valley is not?
Sogno- 
45742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/14

TheGreatHoneyBun wrote:

I think the government has many more things to worry about than a football team name. They should really start doing their job.


seriously
32372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 6/19/14 , edited 6/19/14
...The answers on here are quite surprising. If someone decided to make a sports team called the 'faggots' or the 'crackers' or the 'spics' or the 'chinks' would you have the same reaction? Native Americans have been marginalized for centuries by society and the US government and have in fact become a "forgotten minority" of sorts due to their numbers ever dwindling over the course of US history. Why should we make the same mistake and continue to marginalize them by keeping a seemingly racist football team name? (I noticed the Oklahoma argument, that is different though as that term has effectively lost its meaning with almost the entire American population)

I could end this post by mentioning something about the likely demographic in this thread possibly making the responses more predictable, but meh I don't feel like it, maybe I'll just allude to it tacitly. You know what I'm talking about, we're speaking about big bad testosterone-induced FOOOOOOTBALLLLLLL after all.
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 6/19/14 , edited 6/19/14
Once again I will reiterate that this shouldn't be about the any word itself but the intent behind the word, identify the intentions. Just like a weapon words too can be defined by intent and Redskin is no longer being used as a verbal weapon. Words over time can take on new intentions, meanings, and connotations. This has happened time and time again throughout history within our own language and many others, it is the natural evolution of language and culture.

A more recent example of a word that is currently in the process of potentially changing is "nerd"... more and more it is being used in a positive light and people are choosing to identify with it. Some people call me that at times but I can clear as day identify their intent and react accordingly. Words are sounds, WE give those sounds meaning with OUR intent.
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/14 , edited 6/19/14

BluTrev wrote:


Rohzek wrote:


BluTrev wrote:


ninjajake12 wrote:

Overall, we live in an overly-sensitive world where anyone and everyone seems to be offended by something. It's a way for people (or a group of people) to feel relevant in society; in order to shout their displeasure on something to change it. It makes them feel like they've accomplished something in life and can feel an inner-victory in their actions. This is not solely about the Redskins, but about the pointless things I hear about every other day, about how 'offensive' something was/is. I'm just tired of it in general. You would think they would have something else better to do in their lives than fight an NFL team to change its name.

Well, whether the name changes or not doesn't really matter to me. But we live in a serious world where you can barely joke or make remarks in public without someone calling foul or being offended. It's like having the FCC around at all times.


Its a derogatory term you moron. Saying that this is just some topic of people being overly-sensitive is incredibly stupid. That's like saying racial slurs are something everyone should freely use.


First off, to the final point: that's not what he said at all. Keep putting words into other people's mouths.

As for your first post where you think that because Native Americans think it is racist then it must be racist. The implication here is that perception is somehow the determinate of truth. I'm part Native American. I don't think it is racist. So then am I automatically correct by virtue of being Native American? Or is it because of large democratic Native American groups have claimed it to be racist, that it is then racist? If you claim the latter, then would you then be as bold as to really claim that majorities determine what is and what isn't truth? That sounds flimsy to me.

Would it be racist to go up to a Native American today and call them a red skin though? Absolutely. But is the term being used in a racist way for the name of a football team? Clearly it is not. Is it built upon a stereotype of fierce Indian warriors? Probably.

How would I even figure that the term Red Skins isn't being used in a racist way for the football team's name? It's pretty simple honestly. Why the hell would any team call itself a derogatory word? That's like saying a team five decades ago seriously would have considered naming itself the N-word. Even if they were white supremacists themselves back then, I would have a hard time even imagining it. It's such a ridiculous notion.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what the hell the Native American organizations say. They can scream all they want. They don't hold the monopoly on truth. And to say that ONLY they have the right to determine what is and isn't racist on this matter is akin to post-modernist relativistic drivel.

P.S. I'm a Saints fan. Gotta throw that out there. WHO DAT?


Tell me this, is the word "n-word" racist? Because there are many people who feel it isn't, and by your logic, the majority holds no real bearing on whether it is or not.
If the term isn't used in a racist way, does that make it alright? No, imagine wearing a shirt with the word "cracker" on it, with a picture of a white person.
If you honestly have a difficult time believing a team would be called a derogatory word, then you must not know much about the history of this country.


Even though you're banned for whatever reason, I'll answer. The answer to your first question is no, it isn't inherently racist. No word is. Now it might have connotations where people might immediately suspect it of being racist when used. But to even verify that, you would have to ask and investigate how it is being used.

As for your final point about me not knowing my history, I must simply laugh. Your profile says you're 18, so you probably don't know anything than what they teach you in high school, which is basically washed down drivel. As a 2nd year MA student of history, I read about 1000 pages per week of nothing but history written by academics. Even though US history isn't my field I still wind up reading a lot about it. So for you to even suggest you have more knowledge about American history is laughable, albeit slightly possible I must admit.

At any rate, I'm actually shocked to see that you think majorities define what is and isn't true. There's a lot of logical problems with that notion.

For those who think words are inherently racist no matter what, I urge you to read this very enlightening article:

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/in_defense_of_prejudice/
64910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Seattle
Online
Posted 6/19/14
First of all, if they found the name to be offensive, why did they wait 80 years before complaining about this? If it were changed back when the Redskins were not around for long it would have been an easy decision to change the name. The fact that they waited this long means something had to have changed along the way.
24570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Baltimore, MD
Offline
Posted 6/20/14 , edited 6/20/14
I see a lot of arguing here about various aspects to this. Let's look at some facts first.

FACT 1: The term "redskin" originated from Native Americans self-identifying to distinguish themselves from white people
Sources: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/11/13/redskins-not-so-black-and-white
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html
The middle link is very important as it's a collegiate journal article on the topic talking about the history of the term "redskin."

FACT 2: Polling shows most people don't find the name offensive, including Native Americans.
Sources: http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-story-2
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr2.pdf
The second poll is important because it shows that 90% of Native Americans don't find the name "Redskins" offensive.

With both of those facts in front of me, I don't see a need to change the football team's name.

That said, if they changed their logo to a potato, all the controversy would go away

16598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / NC
Offline
Posted 6/20/14

Tell me this, is the word "nigger" racist? Because there are many people who feel it isn't, and by your logic, the majority holds no real bearing on whether it is or not.
If the term isn't used in a racist way, does that make it alright? No, imagine wearing a shirt with the word "cracker" on it, with a picture of a white person.
If you honestly have a difficult time believing a team would be called a derogatory word, then you must not know much about the history of this country.


Have you ever heard the term niggerish? Or niggardly? Though sharing the same base, these words don't harbor any rascist intent. How about when black people say nigger? Is that racsist? As a skinny white boy with alot of black friends, I believe that their are lots of times nigger is used without being racsist. Take for example my good buddy Jenkins, He's my nigga, and I am his! He doesn't give damn what I call him (normally I call him Dark Chocolate) because he realises that I have the utmost respect for him. Now I'm not saying that you should go up to your nearest black friend and be all "Yo my nigga" in their face, as the word often does carry negative connotations, my point is simply that a 'racsist word', when used in a respectful manner by people who harbour no predjudice, loses most of the negative-ness. I mean, does everyone jump the kid in english that has to say nigger while reading Huck Finn? No. But yet, large groups of people say that Huck Finn is a racsist trash book... I say some people are too sensitive.

How 'bout dem Cowboys? (It really hurt me, having to defend the Redskins...)
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/20/14

mdmrn wrote:

That said, if they changed their logo to a potato, all the controversy would go away



You have just solved the entire issue, and at a fraction of the cost no less. GO SPUDS!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.