Redskins

[resurrected]

soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/
noun
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
a fallacious argument.
plural noun: sophistries
synonyms: specious reasoning, fallacy, sophism, casuistry More

 

[Yorzhik]

What I have said and what my standard consistently has been is this: if you say you mean no offense in using a particular term and find that your usage is, in fact, offending you should stop using it.

OK. So "Yankee" offends me. I know you are ambivalent to it. But you'd hope the NY team would stop using the name based on my offense, right?

You're mistaken in your premise, given there's no court order calling for Washington to call itself anything else. They simply can't own and profit singularly by it. And I've never called for outlawing a term.

While the topic of copyrights and patents are for another thread, the common understanding is that if a court discriminates against your use of a trademark biased on perceived offense then the court has declared it is wrong to use it.

 

[Town Heretic]

OK. So "Yankee" offends me. I know you are ambivalent to it. But you'd hope the NY team would stop using the name based on my offense, right?

No. Rather I wouldn't use it because I like you and wouldn't want to needlessly upset you, whether I found your objection reasonable or not. I don't find it comparable for a number of reasons that I'd be happy to address privately or in a thread specifically about it, but which I don't want to side bar my point here with.

While the topic of copyrights and patents are for another thread, the common understanding is that if a court discriminates against your use of a trademark biased on perceived offense then the court has declared it is wrong to use it.

I don't know how you arrive at a "common understanding" on popular response. Do you feel it is wrong to use the term because the court removed the patent protection?

 

[resurrected]

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."

:doh:

Thoughts, opinions?

:think:

town is a retard comes to mind

 

[Frank Ernest]

That's never been remotely my point. In fact, I've literally said that the only reason I noted the number bit at all was to counter the at best mistaken notion some advanced that this was a liberal white problem invented for political reasons.

It was, is, and obviously so.

What I have said and what my standard consistently has been is this: if you say you mean no offense in using a particular term and find that your usage is, in fact, offending you should stop using it.

Perhaps in a one-on-one social discourse. Even then I might regard such a request as being hypocritical. As a general principle, no.

No, it isn't. It's a rephrase of the principle I set out above. I'm asking for people to honor their own word on the point. I don't know that the Washington owner really cares if he offends or not. He doesn't seem to. If not he shouldn't. And people are free to respond to who and how he is on the point.

Inconsistent. You're shifting the burden back and forth here between offender and offendee.

You're mistaken in your premise, given there's no court order calling for Washington to call itself anything else. They simply can't own and profit singularly by it. And I've never called for outlawing a term.

True. However, you are advocating political correctness, whether you recognize it as such or not. Public or private, I abhor the idea.

 

[Town Heretic]

It was, is, and obviously so.

Ten percent of the people offended and all of those objecting to the court by petition were and are Native American, agree with their objection or not.

Perhaps in a one-on-one social discourse. Even then I might regard such a request as being hypocritical. As a general principle, no.

It would only be hypocritical to say I mean no offense, discover that I'm inadvertently offering it and then continue to do what was offensive while maintaining the declaration.

Inconsistent. You're shifting the burden back and forth here between offender and offendee.

I'm really not. If I don't mean to offend then I'll alter my behavior. I don't find the Yankee bit reasonable or remotely on par with Redskin, but I'd still refrain from using it with Yor.

True. However, you are advocating political correctness, whether you recognize it as such or not. Public or private, I abhor the idea.

I abhor that term, it being so often little more than someone behaving badly then attempting to shift the scrutiny to those noting the conduct.

 

[resurrected]

...you are advocating political correctness, whether you recognize it as such or not.

no surprise, he doesn't

 

[Frank Ernest]

Ten percent of the people offended and all of those objecting to the court by petition were and are Native American, agree with their objection or not.

The FTC, after revoking trademark, admitted that they had never, ever, received one complaint about the term "Redskin." Totally PC decision. Don't know that much about the court case, but an undisclosed number of "Native Americans" is a rather thin consensus. As a personal note, I am offended by the phrase "Native American" applying only to Indians. How far do you think I would get with a court petition objecting to it? At best the phrase is revisionist history, at worst a dissembling political maneuver.

It would only be hypocritical to say I mean no offense, discover that I'm inadvertently offering it and then continue to do what was offensive while maintaining the declaration.

I accept your offer of liberal white guilt.

I'm really not. If I don't mean to offend then I'll alter my behavior. I don't find the Yankee bit reasonable or remotely on par with Redskin, but I'd still refrain from using it with Yor.

Were I a descendant of British royalists (yes, there still are some), I could.

I abhor that term, it being so often little more than someone behaving badly then attempting to shift the scrutiny to those noting the conduct.

Those noting the conduct should be scrutinized. The number of terms offensive seems to be multiplying apace. The number of suddenly-awakened historically-challenged victims seems to be multiplying also. I have no respect for such and won't coddle their Orwellian desire for political power through cultural weakness.

 

[Town Heretic]

The FTC, after revoking trademark, admitted that they had never, ever, received one complaint about the term "Redskin."

How unusual is that? I'd bet most people don't even know what the FTC is, let alone how to contact it. Now the petitioners were representing the class. Why wouldn't the class in agreement rely on that?

Totally PC decision. Don't know that much about the court case,

lain:

but an undisclosed number of "Native Americans" is a rather thin consensus.

As I said to Quincy earlier, if I told you one in ten Americans were getting cancer I doubt you'd find the number statistically irrelevant or thin. Anyway, that study is a decade old and had questions regarding its sampling and methodology.

There's another completed this year from Cal State that broke down a bit differently. In general it found that about 60 percent of whites were all right with the name. Then we get to Native Americans it's a different story.

Here's one sentence from the study that was offered for response:

The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol.

American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement.

Other ethnic groups are spread across the three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist, as neutral, or disagreeing in seeing Redskins as racially offensive. Whites were 33% in agreement, 26% neutral, and 41% disagreed the term was racial, generally the reverse of American Indian responses.​

Here's a link to the University release.

As a personal note, I am offended by the phrase "Native American" applying only to Indians.

Why? You're native American, they're Native American. It's simply a way to distinguish between the original settlers of the continent and those who came long after those settlers had established their cultures and civilizations. Little "n" Americans have done pretty well for themselves. You'd have more traction with objecting to the term immigrant, though it would still leak like a sieve.

How far do you think I would get with a court petition objecting to it? At best the phrase is revisionist history, at worst a dissembling political maneuver.

I don't think you'd have much of a case. I doubt that Native Americans would have much more of a case bringing a general suit to rid the country of a word. It's a bit thin, to use your term.

I wrote: It would only be hypocritical to say I mean no offense, discover that I'm inadvertently offering it and then continue to do what was offensive while maintaining the declaration.

I accept your offer of liberal white guilt.

I've never heard good manners and consistent approach called that before. Interesting. lain: By which I mean, if you can't get at the message...

Those noting the conduct should be scrutinized. The number of terms offensive seems to be multiplying apace.

Does it? List five.

The number of suddenly-awakened historically-challenged victims seems to be multiplying also.

This objection is decades old, as I've noted and linked prior...so no, but the number of people taking exception to exception without any demonstrable familiarity with the actual case holding or the history of exception taken appears to be on the rise.

I have no respect for such and won't coddle their Orwellian desire for political power through cultural weakness.

That's a bit of fairly dramatic rhetoric to describe a minority responding to a negative sterotype...Look, Frank, if you don't care if you offend Native Americans then you aren't someone my argument was aimed at convincing of anything. I'm speaking singularly to those who meant no offense, or even meant praise and who, when finding out their efforts inadvertently result in that unintended offense, should then reasonably be inclined to alter the conduct.

 

[resurrected]

here's the key, frank:

Little "n" Americans have done pretty well for themselves.

as you said, liberal white guilt

 

[Yorzhik]

No. Rather I wouldn't use it because I like you and wouldn't want to needlessly upset you, whether I found your objection reasonable or not. I don't find it comparable for a number of reasons that I'd be happy to address privately or in a thread specifically about it, but which I don't want to side bar my point here with.

The point being that I'm just as valid as the 10% (or 67%) of the Native Americans that don't like the work Redskins. Therefore, you should call for the same treatment of the name. Also, if the name Redskins is worse than the word Yankees, please provide us with the objective measure of badness needed before a name is considered unusable.

I don't know how you arrive at a "common understanding" on popular response. Do you feel it is wrong to use the term because the court removed the patent protection?

If I was able to get a court to remove the trademark protection of Yankees based on my being offended by it, then you would defend the NY team changing their name, and against people that felt the name Yankees was OK to keep it, just like you are doing with the Redskins.

 

[Town Heretic]

The point being that I'm just as valid as the 10% (or 67%) of the Native Americans that don't like the work Redskins.

Your emotional response would be as valid, to you and to those who cared if they upset you, to be sure.

Therefore, you should call for the same treatment of the name.

I said I'd refrain from using the term for you or in your presence. That's what I'm saying anyone who cares about you should do, though I don't think you have anything like the case that makes your feeling reasonable or parallel.

Also, if the name Redskins is worse than the word Yankees, please provide us with the objective measure of badness needed before a name is considered unusable.

Read the court decision and the evidence presented on how that term was used by the empowered majority to mostly demean and reduce a struggling and unempowered minority. If you think that accurately portrays Yankee, that you could substitute the word and the meaningful particulars would line up I think you'll have to make that case.

If I was able to get a court to remove the trademark protection of Yankees based on my being offended by it, then you would defend the NY team changing their name, and against people that felt the name Yankees was OK to keep it, just like you are doing with the Redskins.

You can't make that case. It doesn't have the historical use and the crucial thing that empowers words like that, the fact that they're used as a form of weapon against those who are least in a position to defend against it. But let's say we lived in a world where the white establishment from the north had been a historically deprived, segregated and often disparaged minority. Then, the parallel being meaningful, I'd be happy to take your case.


Else, if you don't mean to offend and find yourself giving offense: stop doing that.

:e4e:

 

[Frank Ernest]

How unusual is that? I'd bet most people don't even know what the FTC is, let alone how to contact it.

Obviously, someone did.

Now the petitioners were representing the class. Why wouldn't the class in agreement rely on that?

Rely on what?

Then you can't say it's a PC (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean beyond dismissal) decision. You'd need to read the decision first and see what the court considered and what conclusions it actually reached.

Yes, I can and do, regardless of what some court says. Don't tell me you're so isolated (or insulated) that "PC" is somehow an unknown to you.

As I said to Quincy earlier, if I told you one in ten Americans were getting cancer I doubt you'd find the number statistically irrelevant or thin. Anyway, that study is a decade old and had questions regarding its sampling and methodology.

Using the term "Redskin" is akin to getting cancer? No. People who get cancer have a real disease, not to be compared with someone who fakes hurt feelings.

There's another completed this year from Cal State that broke down a bit differently. In general it found that about 60 percent of whites were all right with the name. Then we get to Native Americans it's a different story.

Here's one sentence from the study that was offered for response:

The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol.

American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement.

Other ethnic groups are spread across the three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist, as neutral, or disagreeing in seeing Redskins as racially offensive. Whites were 33% in agreement, 26% neutral, and 41% disagreed the term was racial, generally the reverse of American Indian responses.​

Here's a link to the University release.

Noted.

Why? You're native American, they're Native American. It's simply a way to distinguish between the original settlers of the continent and those who came long after those settlers had established their cultures and civilizations.

No, it's a political invention designed to encourage and aggravate ethnic and racial discord.

Little "n" Americans have done pretty well for themselves. You'd have more traction with objecting to the term immigrant, though it would still leak like a sieve.

Ergo, you are all for sowing racial, ethnic and economic discord. (Keep the peasants fighting each other and leave us elitists be.)

I don't think you'd have much of a case. I doubt that Native Americans would have much more of a case bringing a general suit to rid the country of a word. It's a bit thin, to use your term.

Why go to court when one can hit a hot microphone?

I wrote: It would only be hypocritical to say I mean no offense, discover that I'm inadvertently offering it and then continue to do what was offensive while maintaining the declaration.

:darwinsm: You have already done that.

I've never heard good manners and consistent approach called that before. Interesting. lain: By which I mean, if you can't get at the message...

:darwinsm: Nice try, slick.

Does it? List five.

Can't, without being "offensive." :chuckle:

This objection is decades old, as I've noted and linked prior...so no, but the number of people taking exception to exception without any demonstrable familiarity with the actual case holding or the history of exception taken appears to be on the rise.

Old news. Nothing to see here, folks. Besides, it's all the "other guy's" fault.

That's a bit of fairly dramatic rhetoric to describe a minority responding to a negative sterotype...Look, Frank, if you don't care if you offend Native Americans then you aren't someone my argument was aimed at convincing of anything. I'm speaking singularly to those who meant no offense, or even meant praise and who, when finding out their efforts inadvertently result in that unintended offense, should then reasonably be inclined to alter the conduct.

:darwinsm: Oh! Another one-way street. If I'm offended, that's ok because I am a little "n." If some so-called "minority" is offended, that's not ok because they awarded themselves the big "N". And, with a dash of linguistic tap-dancing, I get dealt out of the game altogether.

Alinsky would be proud.

 

[Granite]

How bad does a word have to be, and/or how many lines does it need to cross, before it's considered a slur?

I mean, if the dictionary telling you one thing isn't good enough--and it should be for all of you pedants out there, but hypocrisy's never gotten in your way when it suits you--that what else out there other than "redskin" is okay in your book?

 

[resurrected]

:darwinsm: Oh! Another one-way street. If I'm offended, that's ok because I am a little "n." If some so-called "minority" is offended, that's not ok because they awarded themselves the big "N". And, with a dash of linguistic tap-dancing, I get dealt out of the game altogether.

great - two more n-words to keep track of :doh:

 

[Town Heretic]

Obviously, someone did.

Sure. But if a few people know all the states and capitals...most people do? How many?

Rely on what?

The petitioners representing the class. It was the first sentence of the two.

Yes, I can and do, regardless of what some court says. Don't tell me you're so isolated (or insulated) that "PC" is somehow an unknown to you.

You can say a thing is X (PC or good or any particular subjective valuation) but when you follow that judgement by saying you haven't read the opinion which considered a great deal of information on the point and you don't evidence a great deal of familiarity with the facts else it reasonably infers your conclusion and posture is rooted in something other than a rational evaluation.

Using the term "Redskin" is akin to getting cancer?

Of course not. It wasn't offered in that context.

No. People who get cancer have a real disease, not to be compared with someone who fakes hurt feelings.

People who don't feel the same way about being called a particular name aren't necessarily faking anything, Frank. It is as silly a notion as suggesting everyone who supports calling those people "redskins" is a racist.

Rather, some people take offense, find in contemplation and use a term that has a great history of offense, an ongoing offense. It may or may not be intended as such, but taking offense isn't unreasonable. It has a factual and verifiable basis, which is why so many object and why that number is growing. The more recent polling makes that case strongly.

No, it's a political invention designed to encourage and aggravate ethnic and racial discord.

So you actually believe that redskin is a good distinction, disregarding that one in ten, and then declare Native American, a word without negative history and reasoned objection is an invention to sew discord?

Remarkable. Unless this is backwards day.

:darwinsm: You have already done that.

No, I haven't, to match your effort and illustration.

:darwinsm: Nice try, slick.

It seems more than that. Because that's not an answer or counter.

:darwinsm: If I'm offended, that's ok because I am a little "n."

No, if you're offended by being designated in a way that can't reasonably be said to offer insult then you are manufacturing something goofy to justify something that isn't. Like being angry because someone calls you a Californian if you actually are from California and suggesting you can now drop the N-bomb with impunity.

If some so-called "minority" is offended that's not ok because they awarded themselves the big "N".

So-called minority? lain: Thanks for that. You're my best argument against you today.

And it was actually white men who coined Native American and it's had various uses over the years but none of them offensive and certainly not the application to American Indians, a term that is actually more popular if historically less accurate among the group discussed.

Some radical members of tribes object to Native American singularly because it was coined by white men, though I'd respond to them the same way I did to you on the little "n" point.

And, with a dash of linguistic tap-dancing, I get dealt out of the game altogether.

You don't understand what linguistic means or you've misapplied it and the tap dancing bit is just silly.

Proffered: if you don't mean to offend a person and find the term by which you call them does in fact offend you should change how you address them.

Counter? There is none. You either care about the offense or you don't. If you don't I'm not speaking to you and I never have been. I've said that from the beginning.

 

[resurrected]

Proffered: if you don't mean to offend a person and find the term by which you call them does in fact offend you should change how you address them.

I have a solution

the Washington Redskins, who chose the team name based on its association with a class of people known as proud, fierce, strong warriors, should make it unequivocally clear that they are not referring to the whiny complainers with easily hurt feelings

problem solved :idunno:

 

[Yorzhik]

Your emotional response would be as valid, to you and to those who cared if they upset you, to be sure.

Then you should be adding the trademark "Yankees" to the list of offensive names.

I said I'd refrain from using the term for you or in your presence. That's what I'm saying anyone who cares about you should do, though I don't think you have anything like the case that makes your feeling reasonable or parallel.

That would depend on how many people need to be offended before the courts would take it seriously. Is that what determines if something is really offensive or not? The courts?

Read the court decision and the evidence presented on how that term was used by the empowered majority to mostly demean and reduce a struggling and unempowered minority. If you think that accurately portrays Yankee, that you could substitute the word and the meaningful particulars would line up I think you'll have to make that case.

Not in every detail, but in general they are identical. Certainly it was used by an empowered majority to demean the minority.

You can't make that case. It doesn't have the historical use and the crucial thing that empowers words like that, the fact that they're used as a form of weapon against those who are least in a position to defend against it. But let's say we lived in a world where the white establishment from the north had been a historically deprived, segregated and often disparaged minority. Then, the parallel being meaningful, I'd be happy to take your case.

As much as I hate Scrubs (it's a tv show), this actually fits:

Elliot: It's that, it's the sweetheart thing. It just doesn't hit me right. I'm a doctor, and it seems sort of...disrespectful. Dr. Kelso: Oh? I've always called the young men "sport" and the young women "sweetheart". Elliot: But, you called Becky "sport". Dr. Kelso: Oh...well, I am so sorry...sport. It must be one of those bad habits I've developed after working in the medical field for over thirty years. Elliot: Th-thirty years? But... you look so young!

​

Else, if you don't mean to offend and find yourself giving offense: stop doing that.

But if it's actually not an offense, despite the claims of some, then you don't need to stop doing that.

 

[Town Heretic]

Then you should be adding the trademark "Yankees" to the list of offensive names.

Well, no. I recognize that you're offended. Given I don't mean to I'll refrain from using it in context with you. It doesn't follow that I find your case reasonable or compelling, only that I like you and I don't see what would be gained by using a term that will only offend.

That would depend on how many people need to be offended before the courts would take it seriously. Is that what determines if something is really offensive or not? The courts?

No, people do. Courts rule on the reasonableness and application as a matter of law.

But if it's actually not an offense, despite the claims of some, then you don't need to stop doing that.

You should read the court holding and the evidence that convinced it on the point, but if we reserve the right to dismiss the offense we offer as unreasonable then our declarations about not meaning to offend become something less than honest.

And, again, if you don't care about offense I wasn't really addressing you with my challenge on the point.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Sure. But if a few people know all the states and capitals...most people do? How many?

All it takes is one.

The petitioners representing the class. It was the first sentence of the two.

Ok.

You can say a thing is X (PC or good or any particular subjective valuation) but when you follow that judgement by saying you haven't read the opinion which considered a great deal of information on the point and you don't evidence a great deal of familiarity with the facts else it reasonably infers your conclusion and posture is rooted in something other than a rational evaluation.

And so might be the petition and the subsequent ruling.

Of course not. It wasn't offered in that context.

Good!

People who don't feel the same way about being called a particular name aren't necessarily faking anything, Frank. It is as silly a notion as suggesting everyone who supports calling those people "redskins" is a racist.

In general, maybe. In the particular, yes, faking it to create a problem.

Rather, some people take offense, find in contemplation and use a term that has a great history of offense, an ongoing offense. It may or may not be intended as such, but taking offense isn't unreasonable. It has a factual and verifiable basis, which is why so many object and why that number is growing. The more recent polling makes that case strongly.

I have no doubt that demagogues abound. I have no doubt there are people who are easily deceived and led around by the nose.

So you actually believe that redskin is a good distinction, disregarding that one in ten, and then declare Native American, a word without negative history and reasoned objection is an invention to sew discord?

"Redskin", in this case, is a name. It is not a distinction. You don't think the phrase "Native American", applied as it is, is without historical blemish? It is a racist canard absolutely designed to sow discord. You applied it as such when you applied it to me as a native American as opposed to the real people known as Native Americans.

Remarkable. Unless this is backwards day.

I suspect you have a lot of those. :chuckle:

No, if you're offended by being designated in a way that can't reasonably be said to offer insult then you are manufacturing something goofy to justify something that isn't. Like being angry because someone calls you a Californian if you actually are from California and suggesting you can now drop the N-bomb with impunity.

Minimize, marginalize, isolate. Saul would love you for that.

So-called minority? lain: Thanks for that. You're my best argument against you today.

It might be, but not if you knew my family history. Is there a size of "N" that falls somewhere between little "n" and big "N?"

And it was actually white men who coined Native American and it's had various uses over the years but none of them offensive and certainly not the application to American Indians, a term that is actually more popular if historically less accurate among the group discussed.

Agreed! Actually it was some liberal white guilt politicians and some left-wing Indians who came up with it.

Some radical members of tribes object to Native American singularly because it was coined by white men, though I'd respond to them the same way I did to you on the little "n" point.

Oh! Only "radical" members of tribes object? :darwinsm:

You don't understand what linguistic means or you've misapplied it and the tap dancing bit is just silly.

Nonetheless accurate.

Proffered: if you don't mean to offend a person and find the term by which you call them does in fact offend you should change how you address them.

Ok. I've known people who don't like their given names and prefer to be called by some preferred nickname or other. That's innocuous enough. I know some folks who prefer their tribal name over either "Indian" or "Native American." Fine with me. When it comes to phrases like "Native American" or "African-American", I consider those insulting, inflammatory and misleading.

Counter? There is none. You either care about the offense or you don't. If you don't I'm not speaking to you and I never have been. I've said that from the beginning.

You're giving up on your liberal white guilt trip? That's great news!