Anti-Redskins add to run during game 3 of NBA finals

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes language is up to interpretation. It's also at the subjectation of what is deemed correct, acceptable or derogatory. Indian is not the correct thing to call a Native person. They are not Indian.

Shouting N- when stubbing your toe is obviously not racist. But the term is derogatory and shouldn't even be used. If you want to use derogatory terms outside of context and claim them to be not derogatory, well you're just plain wrong and your mindset needs to change.

Example: As a kid, it was pretty standard to call peope fags. If your friend was being an idiot, he was a fag. If you didn't like someone, they were a fag. As a kid I had no idea it was a derogatory term for gay people, or that people around me may have been unintentially offended by it. So, as a kid was I homophobic? No. That doesn't mean the term is less derogatory and the kid shouldn't be educated to not use it.

As an adult I'm much more concious of using words like that at all. Does it happen sometimes by accident? Yeah, its tough to remove stuff like that from automation. But if I ever do/did use the word I apologize to those around me whether any of them are gay or not. Why? Because personally I take offense to those words because they are rooted in hate. And whether you are hateful when you say them or not makes no difference.

I have friends that use N- when referring to their buddies very casually. I personally don't like it and make it known when they do. The best thing for those words to do is just disappear. Black people did something differenmt and decided to own it rather than fight it. I'm not sure it's the best way to go about it but that's up to them. I won't use the word.

I'm glad you pointed this out, because if it isn't interpreted at large by the part of society that uses that version of English as racist, and it's clear as day by their intent (which it is very clear this is not of racist intent, and that word isn't even used by people there toward natives [whether it be anymore or ever]), that should speak for itself, but I do note that despite non-racist intent that didn't stop you from saying anyways the mindset "needs to change". Only in a PC world of too much zeal in controlling other people would someone not being racist still necessitate social engineering toward that herd's logic. And you wonder why people resist?

I would never support that team keeping it's name if it was clearly racist (as in, the name was prevalent and often used against in a racist fashion against natives) in practice, rather than theory. But it isn't.. this is much ado about nothing.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I'm glad you pointed this out, because if it isn't interpreted at large by the part of society that uses that version of English as racist, and it's clear as day by their intent (which it is very clear this is not of racist intent, and that word isn't even used by people there toward natives [whether it be anymore or ever]), that should speak for itself, but I do note that despite non-racist intent that didn't stop you from saying anyways the mindset "needs to change". Only in a PC world of too much zeal in controlling other people would someone not being racist still necessitate social engineering toward that herd's logic. And you wonder why people resist?

I would never support that team keeping it's name if it was clearly racist (as in, the name was prevalent and often used against in a racist fashion against natives) in practice, rather than theory. But it isn't.. this is much ado about nothing.

Here's a note: When shouting in anger/pain ask yourself, "can the word I'm about to use be interpreted as and/or has a historical context of subjectation of an entire group of people? Would this word exist if it was not originally conceived with hate and/or misunderstanding."

If to the answer to that is yes, don't use the word. And if you do use it, don't be surprised when people get upset about it.

Otherwise I guess we just get to wait for people like you with outdated and backwards thinking to just die out.

A whole group of people grew up with Pluto as a planet. It's not classified as such anymore. Some people still refer to Pluto as a planet. They are wrong. It's not up to interpretation by anyone.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Here's a note: When shouting in anger/pain ask yourself, "can the word I'm about to use be interpreted as and/or has a historical context of subjectation of an entire group of people? Would this word exist if it was not originally conceived with hate and/or misunderstanding."

If to the answer to that is yes, don't use the word. And if you do, don't be surprised when people get upset about it.

Otherwise I guess we just get to wait for people like you with outdated and backwards thinking to just die out.

A whole group of people grew up with Pluto as a planet. It's not classified as such anymore. Some people still refer to Pluto as a planet. They are wrong. It's not up to interpretation by anyone.

Your example of something being archaic would be applicable if I were basing this on what people thought 50 years ago, but we're talking polls consistently taken between the 1990s and days/weeks ago.

Of course, the saying that you can't wait for people who don't agree with you to die out is not surprising either, that exemplifies nicely how rational this movement you back is, and why it has resulted in approximately zero changes.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I'm glad you pointed this out, because if it isn't interpreted at large by the part of society that uses that version of English as racist, and it's clear as day by their intent (which it is very clear this is not of racist intent, and that word isn't even used by people there toward natives [whether it be anymore or ever]), that should speak for itself, but I do note that despite non-racist intent that didn't stop you from saying anyways the mindset "needs to change". Only in a PC world of too much zeal in controlling other people would someone not being racist still necessitate social engineering toward that herd's logic. And you wonder why people resist?

I would never support that team keeping it's name if it was clearly racist (as in, the name was prevalent and often used against in a racist fashion against natives) in practice, rather than theory. But it isn't.. this is much ado about nothing.

But the logo is of a Native American.

Hence my if you want to keep the name change the logo.

Native American logo called Redskins. It's clearly about the race, I can't fathom how it's not.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Your example of something being archaic would be applicable if I were basing this on what people thought 50 years ago, but we're talking polls consistently taken between the 1990s and days/weeks ago.

Of course, the saying that you can't wait for people who don't agree with you to die out is not surprising either, that exemplifies nicely how rational this movement you back is, and why it has resulted in approximately zero changes.

Sadly, I suspect you time here will be short.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

But the logo is of a Native American.

Hence my if you want to keep the name change the logo.

Native American logo called Redskins. It's clearly about the race, I can't fathom how it's not.

You need to be more deliberately obtuse.


The fact that this is even a conversation, points to me that it should be changed.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Your example of something being archaic would be applicable if I were basing this on what people thought 50 years ago, but we're talking polls consistently taken between the 1990s and days/weeks ago.

Of course, the saying that you can't wait for people who don't agree with you to die out is not surprising either, that exemplifies nicely how rational this movement you back is, and why it has resulted in approximately zero changes.

You have obviously ignored the many sources throughout the threads about the issue of the word, including the huge poster from the last page claiming that $200 is worth more than the combined lives of all the Redskins.

I never said I can't, I said we would have to. Just like we have to wait for religious fanatics, climate change deniers, people who think renewable energy is stupid etc. People either have to be open to change and education, and acutally apply it, or yes, wait for them and their influence to leave the human genepool.

Anyways, I think I've made my points clear. I just hope there are way more people who agree with me than you. And that you are 80+ years old.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sadly, I suspect you time here will be short.

Hey now. I don't know about that. If you point at a black person and call his a n*gger, it's not racist if you didn't mean it to be. Language is interpretive and what a minority thinks of a degragating term isn't relevant, as internet polls told me so.

[calumniate]

Funny & sad how one side of an argument can be propped up by a single poster.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Hey now. I don't know about that. If you point at a black person and call his a n*gger, it's not racist if you didn't mean it to be. Language is interpretive and what a minority thinks of a degragating term isn't relevant, as internet polls told me so.

Repeating the n word as often as you have in this discussion surely isn't racist, disagreeing with a team name being changed.. utterly racist.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Funny & sad how one side of an argument can be propped up by a single poster.

I love seeing the other side. I'm always open to hear the arguments, and attempt to understand where the opposing views are coming from.

I found it difficult in this case as one of the posters refused to give more insight and draw comparisons when asked. Although another did argue very well presenting a valid argument (although didn't say what it would take to have him agree to a name change).

I generally try to be a reasonable poster and argue fairly, although the more insane an argument you present, the more sarcastic I become. I've reeled myself in a few times in this debate and slipped a few others.

Really this debate comes down to respect, which is the problem with some of those arguing (and usually a major issue with debate in general).

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I love seeing the other side. I'm always open to hear the arguments, and attempt to understand where the opposing views are coming from.

I found it difficult in this case as one of the posters refused to give more insight and draw comparisons when asked. Although another did argue very well presenting a valid argument (although didn't say what it would take to have him agree to a name change).

I generally try to be a reasonable poster and argue fairly, although the more insane an argument you present, the more sarcastic I become. I've reeled myself in a few times in this debate and slipped a few others.

Really this debate comes down to respect, which is the problem with some of those arguing (and usually a major issue with debate in general).

Well no, the issue isn't about respect, the issue is about whether or not a population deems something offensive or not. Clearly they don't.

Of course, it doesn't agree with your view, therefore must make embellishments (including gratuitous use of the n word) and be condescending to those who dare disagree, hence your discussion with other members on this page who couldn't fathom why someone would think differently.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Repeating the n word as often as you have in this discussion surely isn't racist, disagreeing with a team name being changed.. utterly racist.

I've never once said that Redskins fans were racist. In fact, I've said the exact opposite.

The team name is racist. It's called the redskins and refers to Native Americans.

There's a difference between a racist term and being a racist.

The n-word is a racist term. Redskin is a racist term. You are correct in saying context is needed. The Washington football team calls Native Americans redskins. That's racist.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Well no, the issue isn't about respect, the issue is about whether or not a population deems something offensive or not. Clearly they don't.

Hey you know whose opinion doesn't matter on whether "redskin" is racist or not?

Everyone who isn't Native American.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Well no, the issue isn't about respect, the issue is about whether or not a population deems something offensive or not. Clearly they don't.

Of course, it doesn't agree with your view, therefore must make embellishments (including gratuitous use of the n word) and be condescending to those who dare disagree, hence your discussion with other members on this page who couldn't fathom why someone would think differently.

Wait... You have information that says Native Americans don't find the term Redskin racist?!?!?!

Why haven't you posted it? You've posted polls, but nothing that has said that the term Redskin isn't racist. Can you like it for me?

I'm going on the groups that have spoken out against it. Such as:

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Hoh Indian Tribe
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)
Oneida Indian Nation (New York)
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
Na###o Nation Council
Penobscot Nation
Poarch Band of Creek Indians
Samish Indian Nation (Washington)
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)
The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)

But I'm willing to have my mind changed. Show me the evidence

Also any discussion about race is about respect. You have to respect others, if you don't think a potential racial slur is about respect you don't understand the argument.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I've never once said that Redskins fans were racist. In fact, I've said the exact opposite.

The team name is racist. It's called the redskins and refers to Native Americans.

There's a difference between a racist term and being a racist.

The n-word is a racist term. Redskin is a racist term. You are correct in saying context is needed. The Washington football team calls Native Americans redskins. That's racist.

There are no natives on that team to my knowledge. Just like there are no Forty Niners on the 49ers or pirates on the Bucs. It's a name for a team, not a name for other people. If it was thought to be disparaging why would there be a team and fans full of people in 2014 willing to don their logos/team name?

This is coming full circle to the notion that you have a distinct inability to fathom those disagreeing with you. To your credit, you're not the only one.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Wait... You have information that says Native Americans don't find the term Redskin racist?!?!?!

Why haven't you posted it? You've posted polls, but nothing that has said that the term Redskin isn't racist. Can you like it for me?

I'm going on the groups that have spoken out against it. But I'm willing to have my mind changed. Show me the evidence.

Okay, be right back, let me go poll PETA what they think of the Dolphins name/mascot. Surely it must matter a whole lot if I can find a small group of people who are offended by things.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

If it was thought to be disparaging why would there be a team and fans full of people in 2014 willing to don their logos/team name?

It doesn't matter what those fans think, unless those fans are Native Americans.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It doesn't matter what those fans think, unless those fans are Native Americans.

Of course it doesn't, they don't agree with you.

How many fans are natives? Well, given how long that team was around before anyone made an issue of it.. I'd say pretty close to zero. And I'd venture an educated guess it wasn't natives who made the big deal about it in the first place.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Very few people think anything of those names, until some PC movement came along and told them they should.

You have a tremendously warped view of how this works. You honestly think it's the people using racial slurs who should arbitrarily decide when those words are offensive and derogatory and not the group who is at the end of the slur?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

You're aware that Redskins is referring to this right?