Redskins

[Yorzhik]

I'd say any objective approach leads to the conclusion that most people aren't offended by it, Native American or not, but that a growing number are and a large percentage of Native Americans are and if no offense is meant by using the historically offensive term then it makes no real sense not to change it.

It's not just a name, it's an attitude. A good one. So it makes sense not to change it.

And, if Yankee were considered by its original meaning, support would be growing for the NY team to change its name, too.

I wrote: You don't have to believe calling a Native American "redskin" is a "horrible injustice" to believe it's wrong headed and to question why anyone who says it would continue to say it once he sees the objection.

No, you don't, supra. Trying to insist I must for no real reason other than it suits your desire to be dismissive is about as fair as if I suddenly decided that you must be a racist for defending a use that would be acceptable in use by racists and which offends a goodly number of Native Americans for no good reason.

Of course it would be as silly for me to think that as it is for you to think I must be X when it needn't be and I've told you it isn't applicable to my position. I'm more in the incredulous camp, watching people try to justify a thing by pointing at anything and everything but the inescapable truth that people are being needlessly offended and those who claim to want the opposite are fighting for the right to continue to offend. lain:

If it isn't a horrible injustice, then its not worth putting it in a category of offense when non is intended. What you are really saying is that you want to control people for no other reason than power for politically correct. I didn't want to think that of you so I assumed there was a legitimate reason for your objection within some sort of horrible injustice.

Demonstrably not to ten percent of the people who you claim are meant to be "complimented". This isn't complicated. If you call a woman madam and she takes umbrage, then you stop calling her that, even if and especially if you meant it positively. You don't insist that she see it your way or, if you do, what you're really saying is that you don't care what she thinks and it isn't about her to begin with, that the complimentary bit is so much smoke.

And, like in your example, if 100% of the people in question object to the name then you would have a point.

I object to the name "Yankees", so they need to change their name.

Curious. I've differed with Rex often enough and strongly on at least one subject, but I've never found him less than well considered, rhetorically and logically sound. He's also the sort who will meet a well argued difference with consideration and humor, agreement notwithstanding. I count him among those I enjoy reading around here, sometimes especially for our differences.

Note the "dead horse" argument he uses. Just because his ilk have been wrong about something for a very long time doesn't mean the objection is not valid.

 

[Town Heretic]

... What you are really saying is that you want to control people for no other reason than power for politically correct.

No, that's just you trying to make it about me instead of the issue I've presented. That's telling. No one on your side has taken on my points, so far. Instead I get PC nonsense or let's talk about the unoffended or it's a compliment or kill the messenger horsefeathers.

So far you guys would call a woman madam to flatter and when she slapped you instead you'd continue to call her madam while insisting you mean no offense. It's bad manners and worse reason.

And, like in your example, if 100% of the people in question object to the name then you would have a point.

No, I have a point because you can't address it though you obviously and strongly desire to counter it.

 

[Quincy]

Racists hated segregation too, by which I only mean to dramatically note that it isn't offense, but a) the reasonableness thereof and b) what those who offend say they mean to accomplish that is the point here in my argument.

:e4e:

Well, I'm not for segregation at all. The more the merrier, imo. I just don't think the brand has all that much impact, in a racist way these days. Either most people have become desensitized to it or others, like some here, find it to reference their ancestors proudly. I'm part Cherokee, and I have to be honest, I don't really see it as a reference but I see it as a harmless brand. I guess others don't but that raises more questions.

Do we change the name of the NY Yankees because some people use or did use the term as derogatory? What about the Braves? Chicago's hockey team? I think it might be better if offended folks just personally boycott the brands.

:e4e:

 

[resurrected]

That's not the issue. The issue is how we address those who are offended.

i recommend mocking them :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, I'm not for segregation at all. The more the merrier, imo. I just don't think the brand has all that much impact, in a racist way these days. Either most people have become desensitized to it or others, like some here, find it to reference their ancestors proudly. I'm part Cherokee, and I have to be honest, I don't really see it as a reference but I see it as a harmless brand. I guess others don't but that raises more questions.

It does if the point isn't to offend.

Do we change the name of the NY Yankees because some people use or did use the term as derogatory? What about the Braves? Chicago's hockey team? I think it might be better if offended folks just personally boycott the brands.

It's not do people take offense, it's is the offense reasonable and how do we respond to it if it is. Websters and that one in ten Native Americans are a solid enough argument that the offense is reasonable. Not doing anything about it speaks to the want of genuineness in the whole compliment business. If you can still uphold the offense than you prize your particular attachment to the term above its impact. And that's a shame.

:e4e:

 

[resurrected]

To me it's this simple: if you don't mean to offend people.....

i'm offended by your attempts to paint indians as easily embarrassed emotionally fragile whiners

and i demand that you stop

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.........The issue is how we address those who are offended..........

No, the issue is, why are they offended? What kind of person get offended by something as innocuous as the name of a football team?

As I posted in a previous post:

.........I am half Italian and half Irish. I have heard every Italian and Irish name and joke there is. I have never ever once felt a sliver of shame over any of them. If you think people feel shame over names then such people are of weak character.

I remember when I went to school we called each other all sorts of names and then laughed about it with each other. If we were in school today we'd probably all get thrown out. People didn't give a crap back then because we weren't a bunch of sissy-la la's like kids are today.

I used to call my black buddies "Kunta Kinte" (popular back then) and "dumb n-word" (that's right) and they would call me honkey (popular back then) and white bread, white boy, and all that stuff, and we were all buds. Nobody cared about that stuff, regardless of color.

Somehow, between then and now, people have turned into a bunch of snivelling weasels. Its pathetic.

As has been noted, its white liberals who are offended, not the Indians. The Left are just trying to make a stink before the election, a typical liberal misdirect. The fact that you choose to carry that particular water bucket shows me that you are just a dupe of the Left.

 

[Town Heretic]

...As has been noted, its white liberals who are offended, not the Indians.

Not for you, but to remind folks of the record...

Ten percent of the Native American population objects and that number has been growing. A wide number of tribes have supported the patent objection. Among those: the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes and the National Congress of American Indians.

None of those are white liberals. People who tell you its a singularly white liberal issue are simply, demonstrably and incontrovertibly lying.

 

[resurrected]

Ten percent....

and when do you accommodate the irrational?

when 2% complain?

40% ?


it's likely that a significant proportion of the german population in the thirties approved of state actions against jewry

were the actions of the state justified because the populace approved?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Not for you, but to remind folks of the record...

Ten percent of the Native American population objects and that number has been growing. A wide number of tribes have supported the patent objection. Among those: the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes and the National Congress of American Indians.

None of those are white liberals. People who tell you its a singularly white liberal issue are simply, demonstrably and incontrovertibly lying.

Its the white liberals who screwed the Redskins at the patent office, that's for sure.

I'll bet you can find ten percent of almost any group who are offended by all sorts of ridiculous things. What are you going to do, whitewash the whole country so that every sniveler is soothed?

And you ignored the important part of my post:

.........The issue is how we address those who are offended..........

No, the issue is, why are they offended? What kind of person get offended by something as innocuous as the name of a football team?

As I posted in a previous post:

.........I am half Italian and half Irish. I have heard every Italian and Irish name and joke there is. I have never ever once felt a sliver of shame over any of them. If you think people feel shame over names then such people are of weak character.

I remember when I went to school we called each other all sorts of names and then laughed about it with each other. If we were in school today we'd probably all get thrown out. People didn't give a crap back then because we weren't a bunch of sissy-la la's like kids are today.

I used to call my black buddies "Kunta Kinte" (popular back then) and "dumb n-word" (that's right) and they would call me honkey (popular back then) and white bread, white boy, and all that stuff, and we were all buds. Nobody cared about that stuff, regardless of color.

Somehow, between then and now, people have turned into a bunch of snivelling weasels. Its pathetic.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I am pretty sure that more than 10% of Christians complain about legitimate things and are ignored, like statues of Jesus soaked in urine and the Blessed Virgin covered in dung, all in the name of art. Now that IS offensive, far more offensive than the name of a football team. Where were you then TH? Where were your leftwing politicians then?

 

[Lon]

Sorry you chose not to address my points, but in fairness, I didn't expect it from anyone with a contrary position. Because there's no real answer to it that doesn't insist on avoiding the plain truth. It's pointlessly rude and contrary to the absurd flattery/compliment notion.

Or, as I said in another ignored illustration, if you say madam and a woman is offended, when you meant to compliment, you don't keep calling her madam, or if you do you can't hide it behind that sentiment.

Agreed, but what about the 70% or so that prefer it? Why do minorities always get to dictate what majorities do, lately?

Because you don't find it offensive. That's not the issue. The issue is how we address those who are offended. That ten percent and growing number.

I just don't want to be sued by every minority for every stinking thing under the sun, on the planet that offends. Jesus told us the world would hate us, underneath these concerns is also a concern that one day it'll be a minority hating a Christian and his/her rights and suing us out of existence, taking away our rights and priveledges etc.

Because it doesn't offend you. Again, you aren't the person at the heart of this suit. I've freely noted most Native Americans, most people aren't offended. I've freely admitted that it's unlikely that most people mean to offend. All the more reason for them not to where the offense is needless.

Sticks and stones and all that. Would you sue a team for calling themselves the 'Brothers in Error?' No, we aren't supposed to be about suing. Paul asks how dare we among ourselves, but implied is also against others to an extent. We don't need to be frivolously sue-happy.

To you. To a number of people for a number of reasons. That's not the issue.

As a judge, I'd only want to know if the complaint in any way harmed the other. If not, too bad. Harm must be shown or out the door and they can pay legal proceedings too.

So you think the New York "N-" would be better than nothing? The New Jersey Kikes? The Arizona Spics? I don't think you really believe that.

How about "The Tacoma Indians?" 'They' chose the name for 'their' cementary.
When does a lawsuit against your own nationality become stupid?

I think it goes back to your not being personally offended and your unwillingness to look past that blinker, which is why I'm having a mostly one sided conversation with you, both of us considering your side of it rather exclusively.

:nono: I don't honestly believe the harm is recognizable or legitimate. That's the problem. This is another frivolous suit, imho.

Supra. Now if you ever feel like taking hold of my points I'd be really curious on how you answered them.

I answered but feel you don't listen to me either. "Tacoma Indian Cemetary" was my point. When natives start suing natives, its time to tell them to back-off imo. I'm very tired of a sue-happy America and the whole political correctness movement. It is out of balance at the moment. Unless you can show me an injured party, I don't believe in most lawsuits. I also believe that an actual victim may share some of his/her own costs for negligence even if McDonald's Coffee is too hot, most of it being the percentage fault of the clutz.

 

[resurrected]

As a judge, I'd only want to know if the complaint in any way harmed the other. If not, too bad. Harm must be shown or out the door and they can pay legal proceedings too.

according to town, "embarrassment and emotional distress" count as harm

the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves

This is another frivolous suit, imho.

lawyers thrive on frivolous suits

 

[Town Heretic]

Agreed, but what about the 70% or so that prefer it? Why do minorities always get to dictate what majorities do, lately?

I don't know of any polling that shows seventy percent of Native Americans prefer to be called Redskin. But if you do by all means produce it.

Else, they don't tend to get their way. They sometimes have to die and struggle for decades to get something as basic as equal standing before the law, if you can imagine.

But if you're going to say you don't mean to offend or even that you think of it as and intend it as complimentary, as most here have, when you realize that large a section of the people are being offended you have no excuse for continuing the behavior...or you must abandon what then can only be reasonably seen as pretense.

I'm omitting a new series of side bar issues. They aren't on tap and I'm not going to go down those roads when I can't get you or anyone on the other side to walk two steps with me and my simple little posit.

Sticks and stones and all that.

But that isn't true. I've watched words anger you here. They can do that. They can dehumanize and wound people. I've witnessed it. It can happen singularly and in the larger sense.

...I answered but feel you don't listen to me either. "Tacoma Indian Cemetary" was my point.

Yes, that's your side bar, like the bit about women. It isn't actually answering the simplest question I'd asked, repeatedly in a number of ways.

Here's mine again, compressed: if you didn't mean to offend someone and found your choice of words did exactly that, would you continue to offend them or alter your choice?

Now it's established that a large number of Native Americans are, in fact, offended. It's established on authority that it is reasonable for them to take offense (see: Webster's). So given they aren't women taking irrational umbrage at their sex I'd appreciate a simple answer to my straight forward question.

Considering how many rabbit holes I've gone down for you and others it doesn't seem reasonable. If you can muster that I'd appreciate it. I've gone back and put it in bold, to avoid any confusion.

Oh, and the tort is Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. If you are interested in debating the Christian and legal defense/suit, I'll be happy to chime in on that thread. :thumb:

:cheers:

 

[resurrected]

if you didn't mean to offend someone and found your choice of words did exactly that, would you continue to offend them or alter your choice?

i spose it would depend on whether they were being retards like you :idunno:

Now it's established that a large number...

10% is not a large number

90% is a large number


(i can't wait until jack brings home a report card and tries to convince his father that the 10% grade he earned in...whatever... is a "large number" :chuckle: )

 

[rexlunae]

Note the "dead horse" argument he uses. Just because his ilk have been wrong about something for a very long time doesn't mean the objection is not valid.

If you think your insinuations about "left's leaders, with enough 'education'" and "useful idiots like yourself" are any more deserving of response than a string of deadhorse icons, then you are seriously delusional. The fact is, I don't care to engage baseless name-calling, and while I normally just ignore it, because it flies around this place like mud in a pigpen, in this case, I wanted to specifically note that I wasn't engaging it, because you don't seem to pick up on the fact very easily. And it's apparently taken you this long, and you still haven't figured it out.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If you think your insinuations about "left's leaders, with enough 'education'" and "useful idiots like yourself" are any more deserving of response than a string of deadhorse icons, then you are seriously delusional............

The truth hurts doesn't it.

 

[Lon]

Here's mine again, compressed: if you didn't mean to offend someone and found your choice of words did exactly that, would you continue to offend them or alter your choice?

:cheers:

If it can be shown there is emotional distress instead of frivolity, I'm fine with that. I've recently been called on the carpet for offending one who's first marriage failed, pointing to a rather obvious cause. He was offended. I simply apologized and would be careful in the future around the emotional wreck.

There are Native American tribes that call themselves 'Redskins.' If this lawsuit goes through, those ones will also be caused to change their own chosen name. This is a civil matter that policy nor precedent should be made, rather, a ruling on this particular to the best satisfaction of both parties, with one or both leaving not totally satisfied in capitulation.

That is mho and it will not count for anything in the long run other than voicing what is believed to be right and wrong in this case.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If it can be shown there is emotional distress instead of frivolity, I'm fine with that............

I'm not. Anyone who gets emotional distress over the name of a dumb dang football team already has emotional problems.

Seriously people! Emotional distress? Over the Washington Redskins? Good grief!!

 

[Lon]

I'm not. Anyone who gets emotional distress over the name of a dumb dang football team already has emotional problems.

Seriously people! Emotional distress? Over the Washington Redskins? Good grief!!

Counterpoint noted. I think that too is a valid point.