First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Washiington Redskins Trademark
599 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 6/21/14 , edited 6/21/14
Pine Ridge, North Dakota is a Native American reservation that has the shortest life expectancy in the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of Haiti.


Changing the name of a football team does nothing for them...
4131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Flying Pussyf...
Offline
Posted 6/21/14 , edited 6/21/14
i want the redskins to change their name because it is a offensive name, or make some change.... to make a win win situation.
21705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The Dark Continent
Offline
Posted 6/21/14
Cowboys suck.
4131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Flying Pussyf...
Offline
Posted 6/21/14



mdmrn wrote:

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




i like this idea. a potato as a maskot is hilarious!!!
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 6/21/14

Rohzek wrote:

Why are you even asking me this? It's the most blatant gotcha question out there. If you read my previous posts, I think you can figure it out yourself. The answer is no. I'm not even the issue here though. Seriously, it's the Redskins. And I don't think it takes a rocket-scientist to figure out that they have no racist intentions behind the use of the word. The whole reason why people have cried like little girls over this issue is because they are under the mistaken and completely illogical belief that a word is inherently racist. If they believe otherwise, but genuinely think that the team has racist intentions behind the word, then they must be living in nightmarish land. No self-respecting team or person calls themselves a name with the intention of it being disparaging.

Besides, you've conveniently side-stepped my point that a word isn't inherently racist. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at if you can't even answer the most fundamentals.
It was a yes or no question, fail
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/21/14 , edited 6/21/14

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Rohzek wrote:

Why are you even asking me this? It's the most blatant gotcha question out there. If you read my previous posts, I think you can figure it out yourself. The answer is no. I'm not even the issue here though. Seriously, it's the Redskins. And I don't think it takes a rocket-scientist to figure out that they have no racist intentions behind the use of the word. The whole reason why people have cried like little girls over this issue is because they are under the mistaken and completely illogical belief that a word is inherently racist. If they believe otherwise, but genuinely think that the team has racist intentions behind the word, then they must be living in nightmarish land. No self-respecting team or person calls themselves a name with the intention of it being disparaging.

Besides, you've conveniently side-stepped my point that a word isn't inherently racist. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at if you can't even answer the most fundamentals.
It was a yes or no question, fail


If anyone fails, it's you. I answered your question despite it being pointless, and you've yet to even rationally explain yourself or your position. You can't provide a rebuttal to defend any of your assertions. You've lost on all counts that matter.

I suppose if I have to fail at anything, it's responding to someone who clearly isn't capable of an intellectual debate.
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 6/21/14

Rohzek wrote:

If anyone fails, it's you. I answered your question despite it being pointless, and you've yet to even rationally explain yourself or your position. You can't provide a rebuttal to defend any of your assertions. You've lost on all counts that matter.

I suppose if I have to fail at anything, it's responding to someone who clearly isn't capable of an intellectual debate.
And yet you keep coming back for more. it's almost mystical. Just because you don't intent to be racist, it does not follow that you are incapable of racism. If that were the case then nice people all over the world can never be racist because they are nice.
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / California
Offline
Posted 6/21/14 , edited 6/21/14

Kurodenki wrote:

Cowboys suck.


Haters gonna hate!

Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/21/14 , edited 6/21/14

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Rohzek wrote:

If anyone fails, it's you. I answered your question despite it being pointless, and you've yet to even rationally explain yourself or your position. You can't provide a rebuttal to defend any of your assertions. You've lost on all counts that matter.

I suppose if I have to fail at anything, it's responding to someone who clearly isn't capable of an intellectual debate.
And yet you keep coming back for more. it's almost mystical. Just because you don't intent to be racist, it does not follow that you are incapable of racism. If that were the case then nice people all over the world can never be racist because they are nice.


Yes, it does follow. If you use a word or make a statement with no prejudice behind it, then it isn't prejudice. Just because you perceive something to be racist does not make it racist. Yes, you might still feel offended or hurt, but you feel that way because you're mistaken. What you're essentially arguing is that perception solely determines reality, which is completely bogus.

This circles back to my original point: no word is inherently racist.
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 6/21/14

Rohzek wrote:

Yes, it does follow. If you use a word or make a statement with no prejudice behind it, then it isn't prejudice. Just because you perceive something to be racist does not make it racist. Yes, you might still feel offended or hurt, but you feel that way because you're mistaken. What you're essentially arguing is that perception solely determines reality, which is completely bogus.

This circles back to my original point: no word is inherently racist.
If an offended person explains why something is racist, it's so that people won't say it again. If that person insist on saying it after they have been told how it's offensive then they are just purposely and stubbornly racist.
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/21/14

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Rohzek wrote:

Yes, it does follow. If you use a word or make a statement with no prejudice behind it, then it isn't prejudice. Just because you perceive something to be racist does not make it racist. Yes, you might still feel offended or hurt, but you feel that way because you're mistaken. What you're essentially arguing is that perception solely determines reality, which is completely bogus.

This circles back to my original point: no word is inherently racist.
If an offended person explains why something is racist, it's so that people won't say it again. If that person insist on saying it after they have been told how it's offensive then they are just purposely and stubbornly racist.


That's not how it works at all, and it's clear you have a very misconstrued definition of what racism even is. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as such:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions."

Now after reading this definition, what is required before the expression of a racist idea itself? Well, the prejudicial thought itself of course. Unless there is the racist intention first, then what comes afterwards, the expression/word/slur, cannot be racist. What you're proposing is backwards and defies the laws of logic.

If someone explains how a word is offensive to the user, and the user continues to use it, it does not necessarily mean that the user is racist. That's a logical fallacy and skips many steps. There are numerous possibilities and here are just a few:

1.) The possibility you mention - That the individual is actually a racist and wishes to express such ideas

2.) The user has no racist intentions behind his/her word(s), but cares not to change their language for a number of reasons.

You're presuming that the second possibility is somehow racist even though he or she doesn't hold the belief in such an idea. Such an idea completely ignores how words generally used to express racism come into being themselves. These words don't just pop out of thin air. These words and expressions had to have ideas and intentions before they came into being.

Words change their meanings over time. Let's take the word "gay." Originally its primary definition concerned happiness. Now the primary definition has been superseded by its secondary definition, which concerns homosexuality. Why is that? Because people began to use the word with that intended meaning more often. Does this mean that the primary definition has faded into darkness and people can no longer use the word gay to simply refer to happiness? No, it doesn't, but it might most certainly cause some confusion without contextualization.

The issue with the Redskins is actually very similar. A word is NEVER inherently racist, before or after being told it is offensive.
PauPow 
31172 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/21/14 , edited 6/21/14
A word is not racist by itself but people who keep using a word after being asked not to used because it's offensive, hurtful and inaccurate are just stubborn. There is no debate here. People are asking, please not to use it because it's hurtful for them... but people keep using it. People keep saying that they are not racist but they are aware that Native Americans are offended by that word. We are all aware of the negative effects of these type of words have in other people and people still don't care. Nobody likes to be insulted right? They just want to keep using that word because "they" (the people that are not offended) claim that is not a big deal. Is it really that hard not using racial slurs? Freedom of speech doesn't mean your words have no consequences. If you don't think about the consequences that your words have in other people, you might not be a racist but you are a cruel human being.

It is worse after being told because before you might had the excuse of "I didn't know" or "I wasn't aware". If you keep using that words after someone asked not to used because is offensive you are aware that you are offending people. You are aware that those words have negative consequences to someone because they just told you! You have the knowledge that you are hurting people but you don't care or maybe you are enjoying it. Once you have the knowledge there is only one possible reason: You enjoying causing harm to others and you are a cruel stubborn person. Don't call it racist if you don't want to but still cruel to offend people when you aware of it.

It's so sad to see so many people playing with semantics just to justify their actions... Is it really that hard not to use those words? Is it really so hurtful and hard for anyone to stop using a word that are just insensitive slurs? Does the quality of your message decrease because you are not using racial stereotypes? (I'm pretty sure improves) Is it really that hard being tolerant, merciful, compassionate and kind to other people?
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/14 , edited 6/22/14

PauPow wrote:

A word is not racist by itself but people who keep using a word after being asked not to used because it's offensive, hurtful and inaccurate are just stubborn. There is no debate here. People are asking, please not to use it because it's hurtful for them... but people keep using it. People keep saying that they are not racist but they are aware that Native Americans are offended by that word. We are all aware of the negative effects of these type of words have in other people and people still don't care. Nobody likes to be insulted right? They just want to keep using that word because "they" (the people that are not offended) claim that is not a big deal. Is it really that hard not using racial slurs? Freedom of speech doesn't mean your words have no consequences. If you don't think about the consequences that your words have in other people, you might not be a racist but you are a cruel human being.

It is worse after being told because before you might had the excuse of "I didn't know" or "I wasn't aware". If you keep using that words after someone asked not to used because is offensive you are aware that you are offending people. You are aware that those words have negative consequences to someone because they just told you! You have the knowledge that you are hurting people but you don't care or maybe you are enjoying it. Once you have the knowledge there is only one possible reason: You enjoying causing harm to others and you are a cruel stubborn person. Don't call it racist if you don't want to but still cruel to offend people when you aware of it.

It's so sad to see so many people playing with semantics just to justify their actions... Is it really that hard not to use those words? Is it really so hurtful and hard for anyone to stop using a word that are just insensitive slurs? Does the quality of your message decrease because you are not using racial stereotypes? (I'm pretty sure improves) Is it really that hard being tolerant, merciful, compassionate and kind to other people?


One possible reason? I enjoy causing pain? You couldn't be further off. I just don't care. If people know that the term isn't intended as racist, but then decide to take offense anyways, it's not stubbornness on my or anyone else's part for deciding to keep using the term. It's stubbornness and complete irrationality on their part.

The cruelty endured by words? Are you kidding me? How pathetic! There are women in Afghanistan who get gang raped and a bullet in the back of their skull because of they decided to go to school. Yet somehow enduring a word that isn't intended in a racial derogatory way is enduring cruelty. Such an idea is completely bogus and shows how irrational and stupid this whole debacle really is.

Keep building strawmen about how cruel the other side of the debate is, and how they are just out there to hurt people's feelings. I'm not nor should anyone else feel obligated to regulate their vocabulary for people who get upset over things and see demons where there aren't any. Once you start doing that, it never stops BECAUSE the potential for offense is as endless as your dictionary.
24265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/27/14
It's like having a football team called 'Those N****s'. Is it a good thing or bad thing? I don't know I think double standards are silly...
3614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Rochester, NY
Offline
Posted 6/27/14

edge1143 wrote:


Kurodenki wrote:

Cowboys suck.


Haters gonna hate!



Dude, you are sporting a PENS avitar, so why you pimping the Jerry Cowgirls?!

BTW, GO BIG OR GO HOME!

If you don't have SIX, you aint nothing!

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.