RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Should the Redskins change their name?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 11:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
ESPN Panel Incensed That Native Americans Too Dumb to Be Offended by Redskins

Quote:
Moral of the story, the Washington Post poll is a shining testament to the fact that the sports medias jihad against the Reskins has absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans, and everything to do with a social justice warrior vendetta against a Republican owner who donates to GOP candidates and has Fox News anchors in the owners box as guests.

Nothing more to see here.

The panel said nothing of the sort. What a terrible headline. But then again, this isn't actually a news source with any amount of journalistic integrity.

The panel said the same thing that I was saying before. The percents don't matter unless it is 100%. 21% of the NA population (according to this survey) find the name at least "somewhat troubling". That is more than enough to change the name of something as trivial as the name of a group playing a game.

This is something that is dictionary defined as a pejorative, so we dont even have a leg to stand on to tell the minority they are being unreasonable. It is not a stretch to understand why those that do find it offensive.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6720



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 11:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If one guy is offended, just change the name. It applies to a group of people that were either killed, or driven off their land which lead to their death, or put on reservations, or some lucky amount got integrated into society.

But even if not a sole complained, why have a name that is representative of people who got slaughtered. It wasn't kids playing cowboys and indians. If any of us had to watch an hour documentary that showed how Native Americans were killed, or died, we'd be basket cases for life. Well, most of us anyway.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 11:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
If one guy is offended, just change the name. It applies to a group of people that were either killed, or driven off their land which lead to their death, or put on reservations, or some lucky amount got integrated into society.

But even if not a sole complained, why have a name that is representative of people who got slaughtered. It wasn't kids playing cowboys and indians. If any of us had to watch an hour documentary that showed how Native Americans were killed, or died, we'd be basket cases for life. Well, most of us anyway.

Well said.

To put numbers to it, over 1 million people are saying they find the name troubling. 1 million people of a group that our forefathers committed genocide against. Why is it so important to be able to use that name that it is worth ignoring the voices of 1 million?



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 12:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why Donald Trump and the Washington Redskins are both winning.

Quote:
Most people Native Americans, African Americans, All Americans actually care more about the day to day personal problems and struggles in their own lives than the agenda of the liberal elites.

When Donald Trump rails on political correctness, he is connecting directly with these Americans. People are tired of hearing politicians and media figures wail on about things like the name of a football team and other issues that they dont believe make a bit of difference in their lives. This is just one more piece of evidence of the disconnect between liberal elites and the people they aspire to govern.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 12:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
The percents don't matter unless it is 100%.


So any one person offended by a team name means the team should be required to change it?



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 2:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
justintyme wrote:
The percents don't matter unless it is 100%.


So any one person offended by a team name means the team should be required to change it?

When the name is dictionary defined as a pejorative and that one person is a member of a group that were victims of genocide at the hands of those now using the name? Absolutely. This isn't something that could, or should, be determined by a majority vote. If that one person has a strong argument to as to why it is offensive, the fact that others do not find it so has no bearing on whether it is, or is not, to the one.

But in this case it is over 1 million of said people, which makes the "one person" standard nothing more than a thought exercise in the abstract. In reality, 1 million is a statistically significant number and makes that thought exercise inconsequential to the actual issue.

So the question truly at hand is, "So, if only 1 million people of a group that had a genocide committed against them find a name 'troubling', and can make a reasonable argument as to why they do, should a team be morally bound to change it."

And is this calculus changed if there are 4 million other members of this group who do not feel the same way?

(My answer to that second part would be that the logic falls victim to Argumentum ad populum, that just because a majority (even a strong majority) feels that way, it cannto be used to invalidate the conclusions drawn by the minority).



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 18356



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 9:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
justintyme wrote:
The percents don't matter unless it is 100%.


So any one person offended by a team name means the team should be required to change it?

When the name is dictionary defined as a pejorative and that one person is a member of a group that were victims of genocide at the hands of those now using the name? Absolutely. This isn't something that could, or should, be determined by a majority vote. If that one person has a strong argument to as to why it is offensive, the fact that others do not find it so has no bearing on whether it is, or is not, to the one.

But in this case it is over 1 million of said people, which makes the "one person" standard nothing more than a thought exercise in the abstract. In reality, 1 million is a statistically significant number and makes that thought exercise inconsequential to the actual issue.

So the question truly at hand is, "So, if only 1 million people of a group that had a genocide committed against them find a name 'troubling', and can make a reasonable argument as to why they do, should a team be morally bound to change it."

And is this calculus changed if there are 4 million other members of this group who do not feel the same way?

(My answer to that second part would be that the logic falls victim to Argumentum ad populum, that just because a majority (even a strong majority) feels that way, it cannto be used to invalidate the conclusions drawn by the minority).


Thank you for this.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/22/16 11:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WaPo columnist, Robert McCartney, reverses course and explains why his former anti-"Redskin" arguments and motivations now make little sense: Im dropping my protest of Washingtons football team name

Quote:
Its humbling to admit it, but Dan Snyder wins.

A Washington Post poll released Thursday has confirmed that the vast majority of American Indians dont consider the name of Washingtons professional football team to be offensive.

. . . I have also been a proud, outspoken member of the vocal minority of fans denouncing the name as a racial slur. Three years ago, I threw out all my gear a jacket, shirt and car flag that displayed the word Redskins. More important, for two years beginning in February 2013, I used my privileged position as an opinion columnist in The Posts Metro section to press the team to change the name. I wrote 10 pieces on the subject . . . .

I also acted partly out of what I saw as a high-minded desire to support a politically weak ethnic group. It felt like a token of penance for the sufferings imposed on Native Americans over the centuries . . . .

So its unsettling to learn now that I vented all that energy and passion on behalf of such a small fraction of the Native American population.

Still, non-Indian critics like me cant ignore the poll results or pretend they make no difference. . . . [I]t feels presumptuous for us to say we know Indians interests better than they do. We cant credibly claim that 9 out of 10 Indians somehow just dont realize theyre being insulted. Some Indians told The Post that they actively support the name, because its use means Native Americans havent been forgotten.

In light of the new facts, we non-Indian critics should stop pressing the team to change its name. We should drop the cause, even if we privately dislike the moniker. . . . If we really want to help Indians, we should instead advocate for better schools, job opportunities and social services for them.

I realize this lets down the minority of Native Americans who view the name as a vital problem. . . . But they have been pushing this argument for decades with little impact among the people they say they represent. Nearly three-quarters of Indians in the Post poll said they were not at all bothered by the use of Native American imagery in sports. The split between leaders and followers is so great that I dont see how a non-Indian can champion the position backed by a sliver of the community.

I was most surprised by the finding that 4 out of 5 Native Americans said they would not be personally offended if a non-native person called them a redskin. That suggests that dictionaries should add some kind of caveat in defining the word as a slur.

If so, its a fresh example of how language evolves. Another lesson may be that political and moral arguments can seem solid one day but flimsy the next.

Meanwhile, Snyder gets to say he told us so. With this distraction behind him, at least for the foreseeable future, he can devote more attention to another priority for this fan: winning a Super Bowl.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/17 3:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Today, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the disparagement exception in the federal trademark act (Lanham Act) as violative of first amendment free speech, in the case of the "Slants" band called Matal v. Tam.

That means the Redskins will win their related case, because the "Redskins" trademark cannot be cancelled under the now unconstitutional provision on the basis that it's disparaging, derogatory, offensive or hate speech. The Court reaffirmed that there is no such constitutional thing as hate speech.

The Slants (and the Redskins) win: The government can’t deny full trademark protection to allegedly racially offensive marks

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/29/17 9:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Feds give up fight against Redskins trademarks

Quote:
The Justice Department sent a letter to a federal appeals court Wednesday afternoon conceding that a Supreme Court decision last week in favor of an Asian-American band calling itself "The Slants" means that the NFL's Redskins will prevail in the battle over efforts to cancel the team's trademarks on the grounds that the name is disparaging to Native Americans.

"The Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam [the Slants' case] controls the disposition of this case," Justice Department Civil Division attorney Mark Freeman wrote in the letter to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. "Consistent with Tam, the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Pro-Football."
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57451
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/30/18 12:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Cleveland Indians Will Abandon Chief Wahoo Logo Next Year

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/sports/baseball/cleveland-indians-chief-wahoo-logo.html

Quote:
Cleveland has been edging away from the logo in recent years and has used it less frequently, but beginning in 2019 it will not be seen at all on the team’s uniforms, or on banners and signs at Progressive Field, the team’s stadium. Consumers will still be able to purchase items with the logo on them at the team’s souvenir shops in the stadium and at retail outlets in the northern Ohio market, but those items will not be available for sale on M.L.B.’s website.



_________________
Ena! Ena!
Akout, akout, an déyè
Chaque amour fi nou wa na né
Chaque amour fi na né
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49081



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/30/18 12:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I guess the transition is slow. Fallon made a joke about the Indians situation last night. Something to the effect of the Indians recognizing the logo is offensive, and as a result they will be playing only 162 more games with the logo.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6720



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/30/18 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote



cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10668
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/30/18 6:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
WaPo columnist, Robert McCartney, reverses course and explains why his former anti-"Redskin" arguments and motivations now make little sense: I�m dropping my protest of Washington�s football team name

Quote:
It�s humbling to admit it, but Dan Snyder wins.

A Washington Post poll released Thursday has confirmed that the vast majority of American Indians don�t consider the name of Washington�s professional football team to be offensive.

. . . I have also been a proud, outspoken member of the vocal minority of fans denouncing the name as a racial slur. Three years ago, I threw out all my gear � a jacket, shirt and car flag � that displayed the word �Redskins.� More important, for two years beginning in February 2013, I used my privileged position as an opinion columnist in The Post�s Metro section to press the team to change the name. I wrote 10 pieces on the subject . . . .

I also acted partly out of what I saw as a high-minded desire to support a politically weak ethnic group. It felt like a token of penance for the sufferings imposed on Native Americans over the centuries . . . .

So it�s unsettling to learn now that I vented all that energy and passion on behalf of such a small fraction of the Native American population.

Still, non-Indian critics like me can�t ignore the poll results or pretend they make no difference. . . . [I]t feels presumptuous for us to say we know Indians� interests better than they do. We can�t credibly claim that 9 out of 10 Indians somehow just don�t realize they�re being insulted. Some Indians told The Post that they actively support the name, because its use means Native Americans haven�t been forgotten.

In light of the new facts, we non-Indian critics should stop pressing the team to change its name. We should drop the cause, even if we privately dislike the moniker. . . . If we really want to help Indians, we should instead advocate for better schools, job opportunities and social services for them.

I realize this lets down the minority of Native Americans who view the name as a vital problem. . . . But they have been pushing this argument for decades with little impact among the people they say they represent. Nearly three-quarters of Indians in the Post poll said they were �not at all� bothered by the use of Native American imagery in sports. The split between leaders and followers is so great that I don�t see how a non-Indian can champion the position backed by a sliver of the community.

I was most surprised by the finding that 4 out of 5 Native Americans said they would not be personally offended if a non-native person called them a �redskin.� That suggests that dictionaries should add some kind of caveat in defining the word as a slur.

If so, it�s a fresh example of how language evolves. Another lesson may be that political and moral arguments can seem solid one day but flimsy the next.

Meanwhile, Snyder gets to say he told us so. With this distraction behind him, at least for the foreseeable future, he can devote more attention to another priority for this fan: winning a Super Bowl.



How convenient. NOW white America defers. "See, even THE INDIANS don't care!".

Of course, the NA POV is to give no "power" to whatever whites call them, simply (and effectively) by shrugging it off.

We can expect white american consistency at Standing Rock, right? Whatever the NAs want there, too right?

Rolling Eyes



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/30/18 11:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Talking heads on the ESPN-SJW network are demanding the abolition of the Notre Dame Irish leprechaun mascot because it provokes a "pernicious negative stereotype" of a "marginalized people".

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CDHHeDrieF8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/18 4:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

^To be fair, that's First Take. They say stupid shit all the time. It's basically their job. Can't really take them seriously as they are just there to troll and generate hate clicks.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4992
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/18 11:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
^To be fair, that's First Take. They say stupid shit all the time. It's basically their job. Can't really take them seriously as they are just there to troll and generate hate clicks.


I don't know anything about the various shows on ESPN, as I watch none of them, but I think the objection raised to the Fighting Irish mascot is relevant to the objection raised to the Cleveland Indians mascot, and the objections are interesting to evaluate. If the issue is whether a visual image mocks, stereotypes, slurs or offends a racial or ethnic group, why is this image of smiling, happy face



worse than this image of a belligerent, violence-prone, pointed head on a distorted body?



While I don't think either is offensive enough to ban, I do think the Fighting Irish mascot, simply as an ethnic-type image, is the more insulting and offensive of the two -- because it is transmitting not only a distorted body caricature but also a much more negative psychological or personality stereotype, that of a hot-tempered street brawler or drunken Mick bar fighter.

Now, do my thoughts drift in that direction simply as an intellectual analysis of the two images, or emotionally because I'm part Irish? Hmmm.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7029
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/31/18 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

I don't know anything about the various shows on ESPN, as I watch none of them, but I think the objection raised to the Fighting Irish mascot is relevant to the objection raised to the Cleveland Indians mascot, and the objections are interesting to evaluate. If the issue is whether a visual image mocks, stereotypes, slurs or offends a racial or ethnic group, why is this image of smiling, happy face


I think the major difference between the two is the who, not the what.

The "Fighting Irish" is used by a bunch of Irish Catholics to proudly self-identify themsleves. Notre Dame used to be named the "Catholics" but opposing fans started calling them the "Foghting Irish" as an insult. They chose to adopt the name as a point of pride and to empower themselves (remember there was a time that the Irish were the "murderers and rapists" that people wanted kept out of the country).

Also note that the Irish culture is very important to Notre Dame. It permeates their entire campus identity, including their academic coursework.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin