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

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, if we don't know the demographics of who voted in the polls, they're irrelevant.

Well, Martians could have voted in those polls too, so I would disagree that it's irrelevant. Americans have their own dialect of English, which also means they have their own sensibilities about language, if their populace largely agrees that this team name isn't offensive, why exactly should I follow along with this movement of hysteria over a ####ing NFL team name few are offended by? I know people offended by the name Canucks. I know Mexicans in California offended by the usage of Padres. Why should those people dictate language for the rest? That's absolute hilarity.

Keep in mind too many other Canadians miss the fact that the American Constitution and judicial interpretations thereof are more favourable to individual rights rather than collective.

So the correct perspective is in the polls as it reflects those very things.. really the only things that matter.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Why should those people dictate language for the rest? That's absolute hilarity.

Yeah, who do those uppity negroes think they are telling me I can't use words like "coon" and "n*****" to describe them. The nerve of THOSE PEOPLE.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

1. If the NFL was expanding into a new market, let's say the Mississippi N*ggers. Would that be an acceptable team name?

Mississippi Naggers? Naw, too annoying.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yeah, who do those uppity negroes think they are telling me I can't use words like "coon" and "n*****" to describe them. The nerve of THOSE PEOPLE.

There's the good ol' hysteria comment that apparently people are supposed to take seriously. Good luck with that kind of logic resonating with people.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Mississippi Naggers? Naw, too annoying.

That was a great episode.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by driveway

The Trial Board, before which this case was argued, consists of 21 Federal Judges, appointed to the board by the Commerce Secretary.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradema...d_Appeal_Board

The three particular judges in this case were Peter W. Cataldo, Karen Kuhulke, and Marc A. Bergsman.

source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?p...ty=CAN&eno=199

Cataldo and Bergsman were appointed in 2006, and Kuhulke in 2005 which make them Bush Administration appointees, you colossal idiot.

How about this post, Trumbull? I'm sure it's just a simple oversight, but it appears to be the only post you missed in responding seconds after every post directed your way in this thread.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Look at the polls. Do you really think that many people would be willing to accept a name they thought was truly offensive? I'm not that cynical, that's for sure. Trying to inject reason into a debate on this subject is clearly a task of futility. It's all about how cool it is to find things to be offended by, and of course tell people who disagree they're racist, lol.

Let's work on the premise that the polls accurately depict the belief of the American people.

They're not relevant.

If Native Americans believe the term is offensive, then it's offensive. In the 1890's if you polled the American people asking them if they thought the term N*gger was offensive, I bet the majority would say 'no'.

If I think it's not offensive to call a Chinese person a ch*nk, that doesn't mean it's not offensive, nor does it not mean it's not derogatory, nor does it mean it's not a slur.

Democratic societies are run on the philosophy "majority rules; minority rights". Assuming your polls are correct, you're missing the second part… minority rights.

Native Americans are offended by the use of a racial slur as a professional sports team's name. Why should society let the tyranny of the majority rule?


That said, if you want healthy debate on the subject you have to answer the questions I posed above. The questions use various logical parallels, all of them different, so your answers (and those who agree the name should remain) are very important to the debate and it's direction.

For efficiency sake I post them again here:

1. If the NFL was expanding into a new market, let's say the Mississippi N*ggers. Would that be an acceptable team name?

2. Would your opinion change if the Mississippi N*ggers had a century of tradition including three Super Bowl championships?

3. What if the Atlanta Falcons were sold and the new owner wanted to demonstrate there's a new era in Georgia football and renamed the team the Atlanta N*ggers. Would that be acceptable?

4. Would the identity and history of the Chicago White Sox be drastically different if they dropped the Sox from their name? What if they corrected the name's spelling?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Well, Martians could have voted in those polls too, so I would disagree that it's irrelevant.

What the hell does this even mean? The only people who should have any say on this are the people it actually effects.

Americans have their own dialect of English, which also means they have their own sensibilities about language, if their populace largely agrees that this team name isn't offensive, why exactly should I follow along with this movement of hysteria over a ####ing NFL team name few are offended by?

The majority of Americans are white, so of course they aren't going to find the name offensive. It's not being directed at them.

I know people offended by the name Canucks. I know Mexicans in California offended by the usage of Padres. Why should those people dictate language for the rest? That's absolute hilarity.

False equivalence. Neither of those terms have a pejorative history.

Keep in mind too many other Canadians miss the fact that the American Constitution and judicial interpretations thereof are more favourable to individual rights rather than collective.

So the correct perspective is in the polls as it reflects those very things.. really the only things that matter.

And strawman. The constitutional rights of Canadians and Americans has nothing to do with what content Native Americans find discriminatory.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Let's work on the premise that the polls accurately depict the belief of the American people.

They're not relevant.

If Native Americans believe the term is offensive, then it's offensive. In the 1890's if you polled the American people asking them if they thought the term N*gger was offensive, I bet the majority would say 'no'.

If I think it's not offensive to call a Chinese person a ch*nk, that doesn't mean it's not offensive, nor does it not mean it's not derogatory, nor does it mean it's not a slur.

Democratic societies are run on the philosophy "majority rules; minority rights". Assuming your polls are correct, you're missing the second part… minority rights.

Native Americans are offended by the use of a racial slur as a professional sports team's name. Why should society let the tyranny of the majority rule?


That said, if you want healthy debate on the subject you have to answers the questions I posed above. The questions use various logical parallels, all of them different, so your answers (and those who agree the name should remain) are very important to the debate and it's direction.

For efficiency sake I post them again here:

1. If the NFL was expanding into a new market, let's say the Mississippi N*ggers. Would that be an acceptable team name?

2. Would your opinion change if the Mississippi N*ggers had a century of tradition including three Super Bowl championships?

3. What if the Atlanta Falcons were sold and the new owner wanted to demonstrate there's a new era in Georgia football and renamed the team the Atlanta N*ggers. Would that be acceptable?

4. Would the identity and history of the Chicago White Sox be drastically different if they dropped the Sox from their name? What if they corrected the name's spelling?

I sort of see your logic, which is for the most part just a repost of a prior post, but I find it a waste of time to work on the premise of scenarios here that don't depict reality.

If Americans don't find it offensive, and don't think the team should change it's name, how the hell is that irrelevant? It's actually the opposite.

[jayswin]

Ah doh! You missed it again.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

If Native Americans believe the term is offensive, then it's offensive. In the 1890's if you polled the American people asking them if they thought the term N*gger was offensive, I bet the majority would say 'no'.

You don't even need to put the 1890s in there. I've spent enough time in Tennessee to know there is a very large segment of white people who can't understand what all the fuss around those words is about.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The majority of Americans are white, so of course they aren't going to find the name offensive. It's not being directed at them.

Ahh yes, the unenviable argument of Americans being white and therefore.. racist. I guess only the white half of Obama is President, right?

And strawman. The constitutional rights of Canadians and Americans has nothing to do with what content Native Americans find discriminatory.

The perceptions of things in the US has everything to do with it, the fact that you're trying to muddle and misconstrue what's being said doesn't make it any less true.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I sort of see your logic, which is for the most part just a repost of a prior post, but I find it a waste of time to work on the premise of scenarios here that don't depict reality.

If Americans don't find it offensive, and don't think the team should change it's name, how the hell is that irrelevant? It's actually the opposite.

Gee, the racial majority of the country doesn't find a racial slur that doesn't target their race offensive. Shocking! Next you'll tell me that a majority of heterosexuals don't find ###### offensive.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Ahh yes, the unenviable argument of Americans being white and therefore.. racist. I guess only the white half of Obama is President, right?

"I can't be racist, I voted for a black president!"

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Its 9/10 in support of changing the name, as an article I read this morning reference. No idea on the source of that article though.

Goodell claimed that 90% of Native Americans support the name

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...skins-nickname

The key points to me are whether the Native American population are really against the name, or if it is just a few vocal opponents. Is that same population more against the Redskins than they are other pro sports nicknames? And was Redksins really ever an actual racist term, or was it more similar to something like Indians? Everything I have ever read is very conflicting in for all 3 of those points.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

Ahh yes, the unenviable argument of Americans being white and therefore.. racist. I guess only the white half of Obama is President, right?

Adorable.

The perceptions of things in the US has everything to do with it, the fact that you're trying to muddle and misconstrue what's being said doesn't make it any less true.

You're losing steam, you gotta get back on track soon.

Go back to the polls man, those polls prove our point. It's not offensive because a lot of football fans don't think it is, that's the kind of airtight logic that's going to win us this argument!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by driveway

The Trial Board, before which this case was argued, consists of 21 Federal Judges, appointed to the board by the Commerce Secretary.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradema...d_Appeal_Board

The three particular judges in this case were Peter W. Cataldo, Karen Kuhulke, and Marc A. Bergsman.

source: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?p...ty=CAN&eno=199

Cataldo and Bergsman were appointed in 2006, and Kuhulke in 2005 which make them Bush Administration appointees, you colossal idiot.

Hey Trumbull, you somehow missed addressing this post again even though flameswin quoted it multiple times. Everything ok with your vision there, buddy? Maybe you should visit this thread for some helpful advice.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Gee, the racial majority of the country doesn't find a racial slur that doesn't target their race offensive. Shocking! Next you'll tell me that a majority of heterosexuals don't find ###### offensive.

Ahh, the wonderful logic that because Group X is a majority, they're inherently racist against Group Y.

I'll reiterate, I don't share such a cynical view of Americans.

It's no longer the 18th and 19th centuries.

I'd suggest you delve into the term Redskin and it's use in modern American language.. it's simply not heard of. That is, if you're interested in truly understanding the term. That's likely not compatible with the hysteria crap you and like-minded ilk continue to peddle out though.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Trumbull

I sort of see your logic, which is for the most part just a repost of a prior post, but I find it a waste of time to work on the premise of scenarios here that don't depict reality.

If Americans don't find it offensive, and don't think the team should change it's name, how the hell is that irrelevant? It's actually the opposite.

It doesn't matter what you think, the majority posting in this thread right now want you to answer; therefore you must.

[Trumbull]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"I can't be racist, I voted for a black president!"

Yeah we get it. Whites are racist when they don't vote for Obama, whites are racist when they do. Whites = racist, the end.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Hey Trumbull, you somehow missed addressing this post again even though Flameswin quoted it multiple times. Everything ok with your vision there, buddy? Maybe you should this thread for some helpful advice.

Nah, "buddy", nothing is wrong with my vision, except:

This message is hidden because flameswin is on your ignore list.

But your omniscience is much appreciated.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

It doesn't matter what you think, the majority posting in this thread right now want you to answer; therefore you must.

I'm really bad at taking orders, therefore I won't.

[MarchHare]

This message is hidden because flameswin is on your ignore list.

Ok, since I'm apparently not on your ignore list and you've now acknowledged the post in question, how about you address it?