Redskins

[Town Heretic]

I read it after posting a few times in this thread (post# 346 if you care to know when that started)

Happy to hear it. Sorry to note you began your opinion/conclusion and argument without having done that.

They are exactly the issue. If it was not for their gain, the issue wouldn't have gone anywhere.

That's just an illusion in your noggin. The fact is that, according to the study I linked to, most Native Americans don't like it/are bothered by people from outside of their group using the term. The earlier study didn't qualify the question. And the ten percent (and growing) that don't like the term no matter who uses it would still have filed a protest with the patent office.

World English Dictionary
Yankee or ( informal ) Yank (ˈjæŋkɪ)

— n
1. derogatory often a native or inhabitant of the US; American

That's only in a British usage. There's no derogatory attachment in the American version. Using your same dictionary, this side of the pond:

noun 1. a native or inhabitant of the United States. 2. a native or inhabitant of New England. 3. a native or inhabitant of a northern U.S. state, especially of one of the northeastern states that sided with the Union in the American Civil War. 4. a federal or northern soldier in the American Civil War. 5. a word used in communications to represent the letter Y. 6. Military. the NATO name for a class of Soviet ballistic missile submarine, nuclear powered, with up to 16 missile launchers. adjective 7. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a Yankee or Yankees:
Yankee ingenuity.​

So unless and until the Yankees move to England you don't have much of a case.

...You said making Redskins utterance a litigable offense would benefit all Indians.

No I didn't. Not once. Anywhere.

...turning Redskins into a type of n word will do is give the lawyers, with white men being lawyers more than any other race, access to litigation cash when the word is uttered.

Like I said, it is't turning it into anything it already isn't. And how many cases can you list, literally note, where people have been sued over the n-word? I'd like that list, along with all that cash generated for lawyers. It must be a ponderous one given its out in the general public.

I'll wait.

Said another way, the only white men presently benefiting from the word Redskin are, for the most part, the ownership and marketing arm of the NFL football team which use the name as a compliment.

You don't use something meaning to compliment when you understand that most Native Americans don't see it that way (see: the study I linked to on point).

But you aim to change that to a nationwide bunch of race baiters and lawyers and change the word, universally, into a pejorative.

If a Klan Wizard drops the N-bomb and a reporter notes it that reporter isn't the race baiter. The Klan fellow is. But, in any event, I don't aim to do any such thing. You made that up earlier. Or, more charitably, your bias decided that was what I was up to even though I never said anything like it.

The n word isn't helping blacks at present. It's hurting them except for a few race baiters.

That word never helped anyone. The noting of it has helped steer decent people outside of black Americans away from its use, which is a plus. And those in the majority who continue to use it do the rest of us a service by publicly or privately illustrating what they are and what they aren't.

...do you really think the KKK is weakened by the status of the n word?

Yes. When you take something like that and shine a light on it and the people who use it you make it harder for them to move the margins.

I can just see the KKK meeting "Sorry guys, but we'll be prosecuted for using the n word in public. I guess we're going to have to learn to like [n words] now." :darwinsm:

Making a point I never attempted to then ridicule it...there's a term for that. Should keep away the crows.

Ah, ya got me. I should have been a more careful.

You still should, given you follow that with:

TH supports a race war.

And this, gentle ladies and gentlemen is why he thinks that's true: because I wrote that if you mean to not offend and find yourself offending you should stop doing it or change your rhetoric.

lain:

I expect most bureaucrats/lawyers would.

I already understood your penchant for stereotypes. No need to underline it.

 

[Town Heretic]

:darwinsm: Your ability to tap-dance is amazing.

But dwarfed by your capacity for mischaracterization.

Obviously a reference to "Krystalnacht." (I always suspected some anti-Semitism.)

:chuckle:

I've encountered denial before.

Or, you've encountered an honest declaration and decided to color it with your bias. Nothing in my conduct over years here would reasonably lead anyone to believe I'm less than able or willing to stand up for exactly what I hold to be true. I'd list the times I swam against the public tide here (and still do) but I don't think information is the problem you're having. At least on this point.

Evasive at best.

There was, literally, nothing evasive in my response. That likely accounts for the lack of particulars beyond the point.

Denial again.

You got it wrong. I showed you that you got it wrong. Should I do it again? It's not subjective. I even gave you the link.

Informed speculation = It's true because You believe it.

Rather, it's documented and more likely true than, say, simply declaring a thing, as you've mostly done.

Wealth of considered information = Made-up charges leading to foregone conclusion.

Nothing of the sort. That illustrates that once again you haven't bothered to familiarize yourself with the facts.

Supra.

At times, yes.

So scientific polling, when it doesn't agree with you, is magic. And historical fact, when it doesn't agree with you, is supposition. And you think we have no way to know that Native Americans were here and settled before Europeans arrived to do that...okay, Frank.

Silly them. I bet that, prior to the manufactured PC issue, they thought it referred to a football team.

You bet/think/imagine all sorts of things. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if you had an argument/facts to work with instead of being left to find creative ways to deny them.

When one's "group" identifies itself as racially pure, it is.

If someone in a given group did that it would simply mean they didn't take any substantive courses in biology. But being designated a Native American, or Caucasian, or black, isn't about anyone's notion of racial purity.

 

[Frank Ernest]

But dwarfed by your capacity for mischaracterization.

Got caught, eh?

:chuckle:

Or, you've encountered an honest declaration and decided to color it with your bias. Nothing in my conduct over years here would reasonably lead anyone to believe I'm less than able or willing to stand up for exactly what I hold to be true. I'd list the times I swam against the public tide here (and still do) but I don't think information is the problem you're having. At least on this point.

If I were a solipsist, that might be a good, albeit incoherent, argument.

There was, literally, nothing evasive in my response. That likely accounts for the lack of particulars beyond the point.

Of course not. Once one defines "truth" for himself, counterargument becomes "false."

You got it wrong. I showed you that you got it wrong. Should I do it again? It's not subjective. I even gave you the link.

Not subjective? :darwinsm:

Rather, it's documented and more likely true than, say, simply declaring a thing, as you've mostly done.

Of course! the more paper one throws at an issue, the more likely said issue becomes "true." (Does the name "Goebbels" ring a bell?)

Nothing of the sort. That illustrates that once again you haven't bothered to familiarize yourself with the facts.

You mean I have failed to accept what you relate as factual.

So scientific polling, when it doesn't agree with you, is magic.

When the "scientific" source is politically motivated, yes.

And historical fact, when it doesn't agree with you, is supposition.

One may accept historical documents as fact, if one wishes. Or, one may investigate further for supporting evidence. I suspect what is factual for you rather depends upon your prejudices.

And you think we have no way to know that Native Americans were here and settled before Europeans arrived to do that...okay, Frank.

And you continue to misstate my case according to your prejuducial political notions.

You bet/think/imagine all sorts of things. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if you had an argument/facts to work with instead of being left to find creative ways to deny them.

Likewise, I'm sure.

If someone in a given group did that it would simply mean they didn't take any substantive courses in biology. But being designated a Native American, or Caucasian, or black, isn't about anyone's notion of racial purity.

:darwinsm: Sure, white bread.

 

[Town Heretic]

...If I were a solipsist, that might be a good, albeit incoherent, argument.

If you were being rational on the point you might take it, instead of putting your eye out with it.

Of course not. Once one defines "truth" for himself, counterargument becomes "false."

Recognizing your problem is the first step.

Not subjective? :darwinsm:

Links to outside, supportive data and polling? lain:

Of course! the more paper one throws at an issue, the more likely said issue becomes "true." (Does the name "Goebbels" ring a bell?)

Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers.

When the "scientific" source is politically motivated, yes.

So when the data disagrees with your inclination suspect the gatherer. That's a really neat circle you travel in, Frank.

Good luck with it. :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

For the rest of you, if you ever find yourself giving an offense you don't mean to then the reasonable thing to do is stop.

Heard something on ESPN yesterday that I hadn't considered about the Washington team owner. He lives in and his team has a practice facility in Virginia where they're paid around a half million dollars to work out and Virginia spent a lot of money on a stadium for them. Virginians disproportionately contribute to the on site revenues of the Washington team. Virginians are strongly behind the name.

So there's another, compelling reason why Snyder might be a bit more intractable than normal. He's playing to the home crowd, has a vested fiscal interest in appeasing them.

 

[Granite]

For the rest of you, if you ever find yourself giving an offense you don't mean to then the reasonable thing to do is stop.

Heard something on ESPN yesterday that I hadn't considered about the Washington team owner. He lives in and his team has a practice facility in Virginia where they're paid around a half million dollars to work out and Virginia spent a lot of money on a stadium for them. Virginians disproportionately contribute to the on site revenues of the Washington team. Virginians are strongly behind the name.

So there's another, compelling reason why Snyder might be a bit more intractable than normal. He's playing to the home crowd, has a vested fiscal interest in appeasing them.

Gee. Virginians being invested in something involving racial insensitivity. Didn't see that coming.:noid:

P.S. Sorry old boy, couldn't help myself.

 

[Yorzhik]

Happy to hear it. Sorry to note you began your opinion/conclusion and argument without having done that.

That would only be true if the entirety of the facts rested on the case. They don't.

And as it turns out, the bad arguments and poor judgement of the court turned up in the holding. It was not shocking.

That's just an illusion in your noggin.

It's the foundation of your argument. If there were no litigation to gain from creating a new type of n-word, the case wouldn't have been made.

That's only in a British usage. There's no derogatory attachment in the American version.

According to you, the person taking offense decides. "I said the people offended decide if they're offended."

Thanks for proving my point.

No I didn't. Not once. Anywhere.

The litigants you support says you do.

Like I said, it is't turning it into anything it already isn't. And how many cases can you list, literally note, where people have been sued over the n-word? I'd like that list, along with all that cash generated for lawyers. It must be a ponderous one given its out in the general public.

I'll wait.

Imagine if he'd used the real word!

Suspended without pay

That word never helped anyone.

That's the point. The only way you can make the word worse than you claim is to make it an litigable offense to utter it.

...do you really think the KKK is weakened by the status of the n word?

Yes. When you take something like that and shine a light on it and the people who use it you make it harder for them to move the margins.

You're a fool to think this. All you've done is forced the KKK to look like people that aren't racist. That hurts blacks.

TH supports a race war.

And this, gentle ladies and gentlemen is why he thinks that's true: because I wrote that if you mean to not offend and find yourself offending you should stop doing it or change your rhetoric.

Of course not. It's because you support the government attempting thought control by insisting that a compliment is really a pejorative in the minds of the people that hear it or use it.

 

[resurrected]

...you support the government attempting thought control...

the very definition of the liberal progressive

 

[Frank Ernest]

If you were being rational on the point you might take it, instead of putting your eye out with it.

:darwinsm:

Recognizing your problem is the first step.

Another "likewise, I'm sure" moment.

Links to outside, supportive data and polling? lain:

Standard political fallback.

Or, the less the supportive data and the more declaration the greater the likelihood of horsefeathers.

Or the likelihood of deception based on biased and falsified data.

So when the data disagrees with your inclination suspect the gatherer. That's a really neat circle you travel in, Frank.

Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Very critically discerning bunch.

Good luck with it. :e4e:

Thanks! But, it's really not a matter of luck.

 

[Granite]

If it's such a compliment why is it understood to be a word you don't use in polite conversation?

 

[resurrected]

granite extends his pinkie and simpers:

If it's such a compliment why is it understood to be a word you don't use in polite conversation?

:mock:granite the wuss

 

[Town Heretic]

Standard political fallback.

Noting facts, supportive data and the like...standard for any substantive examination of a subject. Seriously, that's what people who want to be taken seriously as having an informed opinion on a thing do. I mean away from the fringe (either).

Or the likelihood of deception based on biased and falsified data.

Which would take something more than wishcraft and intuition to demonstrate. Or, if you have a preponderance of fact and opinion and history on one side and a lot of suspicion on the other without that backing there's no real reason (outside of bias) to go with the latter and a good bit of reason to recognize the former.

Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Very critically discerning bunch.

Circles within circles, Frank.

 

[Town Heretic]

And as it turns out, the bad arguments and poor judgement of the court turned up in the holding. It was not shocking.

What's less shocking is your not offering proof, only digging in with that opinion you had before you got around to considering the evidence the court examined.

It's the foundation of your argument. If there were no litigation to gain from creating a new type of n-word, the case wouldn't have been made.

It's not the foundation or even the point of my argument and never has been, which is why you've failed to quote me.

According to you, the person taking offense decides. "I said the people offended decide if they're offended."

Which has nothing to do with you offering and my noting a misleading definition or your having a good case to advance in parallel as a matter of law, which you don't appear to.

That was the point. As to your being offended: if you're offended then you're offended. I've always held that. I held it about your problem with the word Yankee more than once.

...You said making Redskins utterance a litigable offense would benefit all Indians.

And I said: I never did, not once, anywhere.

The litigants you support says you do.

No, they didn't. They don't speak for me. I do. I never said that and the whole circus you tried to bring to town on top of that, in my name, never came.

I asked for cases and cash layout that would sustain your notion of lawyers and profit being the root in this and...you found one case over something that isn't the n-word seeking less than eight thousand dollars in damages and another that appears to be actually over the n-word that won't load but looks to have gotten a teacher suspended, at least temporaily, in the Chicago area.

The only way you can make the word worse than you claim is to make it an litigable offense to utter it.

Which, again, is a notion I haven't advanced or defended.


I wrote: When you take something like [the n-word] and shine a light on it and the people who use it you make it harder for them to move the margins.

You're a fool to think this.

You might want to consult scripture when it comes to bandying that word about, Yor.

All you've done is forced the KKK to look like people that aren't racist. That hurts blacks.

Spoken like someone who didn't grow up in the South. But you're unintentionally making my argument for me. That is, why would a racist not use a word that identifies him, Yor? I'll wait while you work out the implications (and they aren't legal).

But racists are in one of two camps: the first sort will say it and consequence be damned, because he's so ruled by his hatred he thinks of it as a virtue. The second sort isn't really hard wired. He goes along and finds the tangential empowerment beneficial. Take that away and he shies and the impact of that is a public good, over time. That's what we've seen in the South. It helps.

You're not a fool if you don't understand that, but you're ignorant.

...you support the government attempting thought control by insisting that a compliment is really a pejorative in the minds of the people that hear it or use it.

Rather, I accept that people know when they're offended. And if you do that when you mean to compliment and instead find yourself offending you should stop doing that.

 

[rainee]

Breaker, breaker, don't want to interrupt but thought y'all
would enjoy seeing again the pride in 1974 of a group who
Not only used the term "red" but "redbone" which they said
meant mixed ethnicities (half-breed) since some or all in the
band were American Indian and Chicano.
The respect and admiration of the audience can't be seen
but I have seen clips were it was clearly visible as they were
reminded of a proud and glorious history and identity.

If it didn't work here is addie. http://youtu.be/Dj0drevGOgA

 

[resurrected]

i'm offended

 

[Frank Ernest]

Noting facts, supportive data and the like...standard for any substantive examination of a subject. Seriously, that's what people who want to be taken seriously as having an informed opinion on a thing do. I mean away from the fringe (either).

That's the conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, that tends to be more conventional than wise.

Which would take something more than wishcraft and intuition to demonstrate. Or, if you have a preponderance of fact and opinion and history on one side and a lot of suspicion on the other without that backing there's no real reason (outside of bias) to go with the latter and a good bit of reason to recognize the former.

As long as one's biases are on the politically-correct side.

Circles within circles, Frank.

I am touched by your limiting (and limited) view of reality.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's the conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, that tends to be more conventional than wise.

As long as one's biases are on the politically-correct side.

I am touched by your limiting (and limited) view of reality.

All that reduces to is: badges, I don't need no stinkin' badges.

No, you don't Frank. You can call research magic and empirically demonstrable facts bias and the totality of informed opinion and authority pc, because in the kingdom of your mind anything is possible that you're willing to accept. But that will never make it reasonable, rational or right.

To everyone else...if you ever find yourself offending people you don't mean to you might want to stop doing that, or stop saying you don't mean to.

 

[oatmeal]

The United States Patent & Trademark office cancelled the Washington Redskins trademark registration today. It ruled that the NFL team's name is "disparaging to Native Americans."

Thoughts, opinions?

What is their new name?

a. palefaces?

b. cavalry

c. white men

d. white supremacists

e. Indian killers

f. the insensitive guys

g. Cherokees, Sioux, Ojibwas

h. politicians

i. Tea partiers


We have freedom of speech, the government has overstepped its authority

 

[Town Heretic]

What is their new name?

I hear they're considering "The Raging Crackers". lain: Or "The Virginians" or "The Raging Virginia Crackers"...but that's mostly a rumor...that I started.

We have freedom of speech, the government has overstepped its authority

No one is stopping the Washington franchise from using the word. They were only stripped of a patent.

 

[Frank Ernest]

All that reduces to is: badges, I don't need no stinkin' badges.

No, you don't Frank. You can call research magic and empirically demonstrable facts bias and the totality of informed opinion and authority pc, because in the kingdom of your mind anything is possible that you're willing to accept. But that will never make it reasonable, rational or right.

Yet another "Likewise, I'm sure" moment.

To everyone else...if you ever find yourself offending people you don't mean to you might want to stop doing that, or stop saying you don't mean to.

:darwinsm: