Punch

Growing pains, essentially. It's true of our sports teams as they rebuild and it's true of social norms as they evolve.

What is meant by "mandating gay history", anyhow? A public acknowledgement of the contributions made to this country by homosexuals? I would see this as a reversal to longstanding repression and nothing more. No one is being stopped from "making nativity scenes". Public property being appropriated for promoting one particular religion appears pretty innocuous, unless you happen to be a non-Christian not afforded that same privilege. I think you know that. Public policy is typically directed by public opinion--- with local concerns having more sway over local govt. It is utterly disingenuous to suggest that historical pockmarks such as Jim Crow are "on the level" with local politics. FWIW, I don't really disagree with this for the most part, although you likely think I'm merely "acting in accordance with" political correctness. Many of these supposed intrusions on freedom are nothing more than clumsy attempts to right historical wrongs by well meaning but ill directed local politicians and administrators. I don't believe it is quite the crisis that you are making it out to be, but rather a wave of sudden "awareness". A lot of it is BS, there's no question. But intelligent and informed citizens with common sense need to speak up more often in the public discourse to help foster a balance between the 2 opposing viewpoints.

It's incredible that so many NFL decision makers are so beholden to ancient bias and rhetoric. It's no wonder the same franchises fail, year after year--- yes, including our Bills.

Are you sure you're not the one that espousing the above 1st bolded? As for the 2nd bolded, yes it appears the culture has shifted, but not necessarily to some effete liberal latte sipping namby pamby New Age collectivist state that seeks to lay constraints on our freedoms. The shift is in the recognition that this is no longer strictly a White Nation. Look, in my mind, a Christmas Tree is a Christmas Tree. It's patently ridiculous to refer to it as a "Holiday Tree". But it's also ignorant to pretend we're all the same.

Which part? The threatened "freedoms" specifically mentioned by Just in Atlanta--- "California mandating gay history. Colorodo mandating that private daycare centers must carry dolls that represent at least three different races. A RI town banning daddy-daughter dances. Schools calling Christmas trees holiday trees. Municipalities banning Nativity scenes. Universities banning the word freshman. Universities banning certain words and requiring that students take inclusion training. Kids getting expelled for hugs and drawing guns. Censorship of various books. The Rooney Rule." If these "restrictions" were not placed on our "freedoms" they would arguably be considered unchecked restrictions on gays, non-Christians and minorities. It cuts both ways but it apparently does not matter. As for the 2nd part: it does matter from what authority "limits on freedom" are being placed. The policies of local government & universities (as well as other private institutions) are generally swayed by public opinion. The federal govt. enforcing bans on personal freedoms is another issue altogether and would constitute cause for alarm.

One detail I don't recall reading/hearing much about with regards to Wilson predraft (maybe it was prevalent, I didn't exactly read a ton about him) was his wingspan, hand size and high point of delivery--- these are all factors which essentially negate the height disadvantage. Although that wouldn't necessarily serve as a surefire predictor in evaluating QB prospects with less than ideal height.

Some of these "freedoms" are restricting (as both you and Just in Atlanta have specified) gays, non-Christians and ethnic minorities . I suppose that's ok though. I should add, the bit about "asking on whose authority you are entitled to act"--- which entity is responsible for a "ban"is a pretty obvious tell as to whether or not freedoms are legitimately being threatened or if it's merely an example of local yokels caving to civic pressure.

Huh? These don't appear to be actual freedoms that are being taken away. I agree that PC hawks have gone too far in certain respects, but it's quite another thing to suggest even basic freedoms are being threatened here. At best, these issues can be considered "privileges". Further irony.

Sincere question because I don't know the answer: are any of these bans mandated by the federal govt.? Local govts. generally govern based on local community standards and opinion--- or rather, they should. I guess publicly displaying a nativity scene on govt. property isn't something I'd consider a "freedom". However, if private citizens were "banned" from displaying such nativity scenes on private property then that would be a concern. Is that the case?

Some of these examples are silly and do speak to a larger case that can be made against the "PC police", while some arguably enhance a climate of acceptance for some minorities. Literally none "limit" freedom in any capacity.

For better or worse, it has already been acknowledged that Marrone informed the previous staff that they will not be retained going forward.

??? This is fairly gargantuan leap in logic, and exactly the sentiment to which I was referring. A: "Redskins" is a racial epithet and remains offensive to many Native Americans/Indians B: Where will this slippery slope end? Banning SpongeBob from our children's schools??? Why does one logically lead to the other?

"Circling the wagons" isn't offensive anymore than the word "blitz". Where to draw the line is really pretty obvious, isn't it? Implying that society will devolve into some form of martial law due to a "slippery slope" is an overreaction.

This is a lot if rhetoric though, isn't it? I understand what you're saying to a degree, but I'm not sure it describes any posters in this thread. It is also a stereotype of a certain type of "hippie dippie" New Ager. I'm not sure it's fair to paint the opposing viewpoint with such broad strokes anymore than it would be for me to attempt to define you with a paranoid Fox News far right brush. I do understand. FWIW, I am also generally annoyed by PC correctness. There are posters in this thread that appear "threatened" by the very nature of the conversation, and not necessarily you, to clarify.

Those that disagree with you are "pussies"? I'd say that's a standard tough guy act. The part about you guys trying so hard to be offended by other poster's words and ideas--- that's ironic considering your position on the general PC police meme.

Much of this post is kind of embarrassing. The "racial/ethnic victim bandwagon" card, or whatever you're saying--- it's all dripping with irony. You tough guys are trying way too hard to be offended by those that simply acknowledge a basic truth.

Yes, you are well known as a hard line politically ideological crusader. I've been consistent: the point I'm making is that in merely acknowledging it is a derogatory term, we are not welcoming an Orwellian police state to determine all future thought and/or public opinion. That was clearly being peddled by some in the other thread. Sorry.

Everyone knows the score when it comes to your opinions. You are a hard line ideologue. I'm not "whining" or derailing anything. I don't see the point of a poll, but I'm not calling for it to be closed. A racial epithet is a racial epithet, which isn't arguable. Most don't think of it as such because the name has gained a 2nd more innocuous association over time, which is also not arguable. Carry on with your crusade. I understand it in general I just don't think the result will go very far in determine whether its right or wrong to continue using the name.

I don't argue that "multiple people" hold that opinion. I'm re-reading your eloquently written post for reference to examples of more than one and I don't see it. I'm not sure why this is hard. Many individuals hold opinions on both sides. It is a racial epithet. That is unarguable. I haven't even advocated in this thread that the NFL change it, only that the discussion be allowed without cries of a police state. It doesn't appear possible.

If this poll were aimed at the specific group that is denigrated by the term, there would stand to be an interesting result. It's safe to assume, however, that the majority of respondents do not fit that criteria based on general population figures. It's like asking fans from all 32 teams for their favorite NFL player and being surprised that a Buffalo Bill is not ranked #1. So, what's the point?

Honestly, I agree with this sentiment--- although there have been many overtures to replace the "offensive" Indians caricature logo over the years--- like I said, I'm not in favor of the PC police. I'm also not in favor of denying something is an historical racial epithet. "Seminoles" is a far cry from "Redskins". Is that not obvious?

There's a clear attempt to derail the conversation into full blown conspiracy mode. All talk of a "slippery slope" is equally overstated. It's just a message board discussion, not a congressional hearing. You're right. The single opinion of one individual proves that it isn't offensive. Your post reads as someone who "gets off on being a d-bag".

Not a single team name in this quote is a derogatory term, as is "Redskins". You guys are trying way too hard. FWIW, I'm not in favor of so-called "PC police", but I don't think that a term considered offensive to a specific minority group should be deemed "acceptable" because the majority doesn't care. At the very least, the conversation should be allowed to take place on a message board without being shouted down.

It sounds like you didn't actually watch the NFC Championship Game last year, eh? Alex Smith had a great game. The 49ers would have won if their punt returner didn't fumble twice in Giants' FG range--- once which allowed for the tying points in the 4th quarter and the 2nd time in OT which allowed the GW FG. I'm not a strong advocate for A. Smith, but please get the facts correct.

You mean the relatively small and largely dispersed native american population that actually finds it offensive? You're surprised there aren't throngs of people in the streets protesting in Ashburn, VA on a regular basis? The reason many "intellectual" types take up the fight on their behalf from time to time is due to the fact that small sample of citizens that generally cannot speak loudly enough for themselves. You're building this slight thread drift into a culture war. My main point is that merely suggesting that it is indeed an offensive and derogatory name doesn't mean we need to invoke 1984, as I believe you are doing. It's a bit reactionary. I'd argue that by aggresively shooting down the very discussion, you are actually evoking Orwell's "thought police" sentiment.