Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[Jiri Hrdina]

I guess part of what I would ask is why these names have to exist. The sport will exist. The team will exist. The history of that team will exist.
Why do the names HAVE to exist.
Prove the value they have.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

https://twitter.com/user/status/1273341583438548992

Update: the shooting officer has been charged with murder.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rayshar...ay-2020-06-17/

The former Atlanta police officer who fatally shot a black man who ran away with his Taser last week has been charged with murder, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced Wednesday. Garrett Rolfe, who was fired after the killing of 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks, faces 11 criminal charges, including felony murder.

Howard, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said Brooks never displayed any "aggressive behavior" toward the officers during the nearly 42-minute exchange with officers. Howard said the officers failed to provide "timely" medical attention to Brooks after he was shot.

The second officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, faces three charges, including aggravated assault for standing or stepping on Brooks' shoulder after he was shot, Howard said, adding that Brosnan is willing to become a witness for the state and testify against Rolfe.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yeah, a hung jury in the first one. Which is insane. Clear video of a 50 year old running the other way, meters between him and the cop, shot in the back and someone was able to watch that video and go "perfectly reasonable police action".

Well, I mean, clearly by some posters in this thread, there are some people in the general public who believe it is reasonable.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

https://twitter.com/user/status/1273341583438548992

To be fair, he could have come back after being shot twice and grabbed the cops gun and killed everyone there then got in his car and drunkenly drove around mowing people down.

So the cops were justified.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by getbak

To their credit (which I hate to do, E=NG), the Eskimos did consult with various Inuit and Indigenous groups regarding their name and the consensus seems to be that it's not offensive: https://edmontonjournal.com/sports/f...s-to-change-it

(Of course not everyone agrees, but that's going to be true no matter what they decide)



Only a couple of years ago. The 2019 season was their first without using the "Chief Wahoo" logo. I believe they phased out its use on their road uniforms a few years earlier, but still wore it at home until the end of the 2018 season.

The Redskins had a poll that said their name/logo was fine to 90% of Indigenous people as well. You can frame your poll questions to get the result you want most of the time.

That said - this name stuff is basically just companies doing the bare minimum and next to nothing. They should change them, but there's about 50 other things they could do that would have more impact on these populations that no one ever talks about.

[CliffFletcher]

If we put the threshold for removal of content for offensiveness at 10 or even 20 per cent, our culture would look radically different. There would be no pornography, no swearing in movies, no depictions of homosexuality, no Harry Potter books, no violent videogames, no vulgar comedy, no negative portrayals of the military, etc, etc.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we put the threshold for removal of content for offensiveness at 10 or even 20 per cent, our culture would look radically different. There would be no pornography, no swearing in movies, no depictions of homosexuality, no Harry Potter books, no violent videogames, no vulgar comedy, no negative portrayals of the military, etc, etc.

10 or 20 percent of what? Because it's clearly not 10 to 20% of society as a whole - Petemoss's data is a percentage of first nations people polled. Unless you happen to have a list of groups of people whose opinions about offensiveness we care about if they exceed the 10 or 20 percent, there's no room for any culture at all. Just about everything is offensive to someone.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we put the threshold for removal of content for offensiveness at 10 or even 20 per cent, our culture would look radically different. There would be no pornography, no swearing in movies, no depictions of homosexuality, no Harry Potter books, no violent videogames, no vulgar comedy, no negative portrayals of the military, etc, etc.

Christ centrists love slippery slope arguments that miss the point.

It's not an issue of being offensive because some rando finds it offensive.

It's an issue of offensive because it makes light of/unflatteringly depicts/punches down on something that someone is.

Literally everything you listed is a choice and/or learned behavior, not an inborn trait.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we put the threshold for removal of content for offensiveness at 10 or even 20 per cent, our culture would look radically different. There would be no pornography, no swearing in movies, no depictions of homosexuality, no Harry Potter books, no violent videogames, no vulgar comedy, no negative portrayals of the military, etc, etc.

Again why do we need a team called the Redskins?
Answer me that.
Why cultural value does it have?
What value does it have at all?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

10 or 20 percent of what? Because it's clearly not 10 to 20% of society as a whole - Petemoss's data is a percentage of first nations people polled. Unless you happen to have a list of groups of people whose opinions about offensiveness we care about if they exceed the 10 or 20 percent, there's no room for any culture at all. Just about everything is offensive to someone.

My main point about the names is that the crusade to change these is a white progressive issue. These people aren't really offended by them but they are worried others are offended by them. Most polls show these in the grand scheme of things, some of the people who should be offended by the name are, but the majority don't care because they have much larger concerns.

It's hard to find a name that might offend the average message board poster, but if the Flames changed their name to the Calgary fat boys, Calgary Conservatives or Calgary Oil Sands cause climate change or whatever issue that may mean a lot to you, are you really going to be that mad about it?

That said... They are just names, so just change them. At some point some team will likely start doing it for the revenue bump like they get for changing uniforms every 2 years.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I was ignorant here Acey, until minutes ago. Never considered asking any black pals about sunscreen. I assumed, it just wasn’t an issue.

Previous to this post, did my own research. Less likely, but can still happen, AND the concern for melanoma is just as serious.

Yeah when I was younger I couldn't really tell, but my mom always knew when I came back from a soccer tournament and had been in the sun all weekend. I think the concern is that nearly equivalent damage is being done in some circumstances, but few measures are done to counteract it because the skin obviously doesn't turn blistering red.

[David Struch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The Redskins had a poll that said their name/logo was fine to 90% of Indigenous people as well.

After years of controversy surrounding the Redskins name, The Washington Post released a new poll that finds 9 in 10 Native Americans are not offended by the name. The poll surveyed opinions on the team name from more than 500 Native Americans across the country.

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington...-redskins-name


Yeah, I doubt that poll had any accuracy, polls need at least two thousand respondents to have any legitimacy.

[OMG!WTF!]

4th Black Person Found Dead By Hanging in US; Authorities Suspect Suicide...


https://globalnews.ca/news/7074740/b...hanging-texas/


Not too many people are thinking these are suicides.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I won't dismiss the possibility of foul play. Don't see any harm in at least exploring and investigating the possibility. But I would keep in mind the Werther effect. I think it's generally accepted by the scientific/medical community.

In social sciences and in medicine, the term "Werther-effect" is used as a synonym for media induced imitation effects of suicidal behaviour

There's also confirmation bias. With suicides normally unreported on, it's possible if not extremely likely that these four individuals (if indeed suicide) would have had no media exposure had this taken place last year.

[OMG!WTF!]

I was thinking that it would be nearly impossible to pull off four lynchings and make them all look like suicides. There's really no way. But everyone I know in the states is super concerned it's a big cover up and it's really the beginning of a race war.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

4th Black Person Found Dead By Hanging in US; Authorities Suspect Suicide...


https://globalnews.ca/news/7074740/b...hanging-texas/


Not too many people are thinking these are suicides.

Okay, Trump.

[dangler22]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If we put the threshold for removal of content for offensiveness at 10 or even 20 per cent, our culture would look radically different. There would be no pornography, no swearing in movies, no depictions of homosexuality, no Harry Potter books, no violent videogames, no vulgar comedy, no negative portrayals of the military, etc, etc.

If keeping racist team names is that important to you why don't you just say so instead of pussyfooting around it?

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[nfotiu]

Probably playing devil's advocate here, as I lean towards getting rid of the names.

I feel like more information is needed here. You can have a 500 person sample that has a decent margin of error for a population that is only 3 million. So say it is between 5-15% against. I have seen interviews with American Indians who say they became fans of some of the teams because they thought they were representing them. And other interviews of American Indians who grew up in the city, are fans of the team and are good with the names and symbols.

Do we know if we are removing them for the true feelings of the American Indian community, or if this is another example of white people trying to make themselves feel better by doing what they think is best for others and not really giving much attention to what that community really cared about?

The latter does happen, and often leaves the impression that white people are all too willing to tackle these superficial issues (that maybe no one really cared about), but not willing to put the effort into changing the hard things that really matter.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Christ centrists love slippery slope arguments that miss the point.

It's not an issue of being offensive because some rando finds it offensive.

It's an issue of offensive because it makes light of/unflatteringly depicts/punches down on something that someone is.

Literally everything you listed is a choice and/or learned behavior, not an inborn trait.

Interesting point I hadn’t given much consideration before. Personally, i think the native history and culture of America should be celebrated, and I hope sports teams find a way to go from something that denigrates to something that celebrates. The Redskins logo is badass, and I hope it stays.
Canucks
Tar Heels
Fighting Irish
Celtics
Braves
Blackhawks
Indians
Eskimos

All relate to what someone is, in a stereotypical fashion.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I guess part of what I would ask is why these names have to exist. The sport will exist. The team will exist. The history of that team will exist.
Why do the names HAVE to exist.
Prove the value they have.

No sports team name has value. None.

It’s just common sense. You’re looking for a reason to get offended. Let’s actually worry about whether the team names promote or signify racism.

Redskins is a clear yes, some of the logos too. Most of the others? I think it’s pretty thin and most of the issues are related to racism towards those groups that has nothing to do with the team, name or logo. Some are straight up political or about money.

In some cases the affected groups are against the name change due to the wide recognition it brings them. But as long as it makes white people feel better that they did something pointless instead of campaigning for real change.