Happy
-
Posts
6,290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Happy
-
-
4 hours ago, Rc2catch said:
We had so much talk of replacing Lorax and his versatility before free agency and the draft I always wanted Edmunds to be the replacement. And I was pumped for the Joseph pick last year. Adding Klein is also huge. The D linemen are all versatile between end and DT. So it just makes perfect sense Edmunds can play the wildcard moving all over the defense. He’s clowneys size so teach that man a pass rush move or two and let the natural speed takeover the edge
Is Vosean Joseph ready to play this year, or is he a career backup? He didn't get much, if any, playing time last year. Not sure if that is a red flag or there were other reasons.
-
9 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:
Can we count on you to leave the Bills and NFL like the LAMP poster yesterday because of the Redskins name change and Black Anthem?
No.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, NoSaint said:
Still reeling from the bullets change and now they do this to you?
I'm not an NBA fan, though I recall thinking the rationale behind it was dumb. I honestly don't care what the NBA does. I'm more connected to football and would like to see some tradition remain. If that makes me a bad person or even a neanderthal, then so be it.
-
28 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:
Wait, are you native American?
And my opinion doesn't mean jack? It's like if there was a soccer team in Germany called the Berlin Bankers...you don't think non-jewish German people could feel embarrassed by that name and want it changed?
I am not native american, but I'm also not expressing any righteous indignation.
People like you ruin sports. I'll leave it at that.
-
13 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:
Happy is very UNhappy
I'm not the one unhappy about the name Redskins. But I'm the unhappy one...ok.
-
35 minutes ago, WhoTom said:
Brandon with Wood:
Ugh, the vision that just popped into my head. No one needs to see this.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
You asked why you should be considered racist if you use the word “Redskins”. I am simply asking for you to explain why it’s so important to you that you be able to use a word that many consider a racial slur when a different, inoffensive word could easily be used in its place?I, as well as probably the entire sports world, do not intend offense to native americans when the Washington football team is addressed as 'Redskins.' The name/word is very old and is pretty much retired from the english language. It is used only in a sports connotation, that is it. The team has been known as the Washington Redskins since 1937 and it is a tradition. It does not appear that there is good reason to change the the tradition of the name, or address the team differently, since (again) it is used in as sports context. Last word on this.
1 hour ago, HardyBoy said:Do you understand what a representative sample is and how it is necessary for a poll of like 500 people to be representative of a larger population? She had an issue with the sampling method because it did not generate a representative sample, so pretending that data speaks to anyone but the specific group polled is spreading an agenda (gaslighting at its finest right there) and you say she has an agenda...no dude, there is long standing proven math that shows how to pick representative samples. Your opinion means jack when it comes to picking a representative sample. You can have a sample of 100,000 people and it might not be a representative sample...the size of a sample has nothing to do with how representative it is...a bit counterintuitive, but very much true.
If you are trying to take a small number of people in a poll and apply their answers to build a model that predicts how the total group will respond, you need that model to be representative of the overall population. If you have a sample of 100 people and only 5% are women, but the overall population has 60% women in it (hypothetical example, not sure what the breakout in that poll was), someone saying that is a faulty non-representative sample doesn't have an agenda that's mathematical/statistical facts...the people misusing science have the agenda, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker...as George Carlin would say "they got ya by the balls"
She was whining because she didn't like the poll, period.
Are you native american? No? Your opinion means jack. If you don't like the team being addressed as the Redskins, then you should probably find something else to do on Sunday afternoons.
-
2 hours ago, eball said:
Still haven’t answered the question. Your basis for not changing Washington’s name is that “only 10%” of Native Americans are offended. Tell me ONE nickname that is offensive to 10% of the white population that exists in professional sports. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. Why is it ok to offend 10% of one culture but not another?
I have no idea and it has nothing to do with anything. If 10% of the population doesn't like something, they typically have to live with it because 90% thought the opposite. 10% is certainly more of a fringe than the middle of a bell curve. That is why your question (or point) makes no sense.
3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:...LMAO....he just choked on #32....Ruby Red....................
He probably did eat half of them.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
"all of a sudden"??
WTF
In the context of 87 years, yes, it is all of a sudden
-
4 hours ago, Crayola64 said:
this has been a news story and drew criticism since the early 1970s...don’t be obtuse. People saying this is a recent controversy, the product of whites, or modern culture, are factually wrong and ignorant of the past 50 years.seriously, continuing to post about how this is from the new woke culture is beyond factually wrong, and makes you sound extremely uninformed.
Ok, buttercup. Go color with your box of 64 crayons.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
There was a contradictory study done last February with double the sample size. Get ready for the Tomahawk Chop being banned.
New University of Michigan research reveals high rates of opposition to not only the use of gestures and chants, but also to Native American mascots and team names like the NFL’s Washington Redskins.
The results run contrary to polls reported by national news outlets, which suggest that as few as 10% of Native peoples are offended by Native mascots and, specifically, the Redskins team name.
The study, which involved researchers at U-M and University of California, Berkeley, found that about half of the respondents in the sample of 1,000 Native Americans—the largest of its kind to date—are offended by the tomahawk chop or mascots in chief headdresses.
But opposition is even higher among people who most strongly identify with being Native American. For example, among Native Americans who frequently engage in tribal/cultural practices, 67% find the Redskins team name offensive; 70% find sports fans wearing chief headdresses offensive; 65% find sports fans chanting the tomahawk chop offensive; and 73% find sports fans imitating Native American dances offensive.
I see. So after 87 years the team name Redskins is all of a sudden derogatory and offensive. Got it.
-
6 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
Well, it’s a BS poll. Link It suits your agenda, but it wasn’t a real poll and even a cursory examination shows what it was. Why not answer the questions I posed? Why hide behind some BS poll? Why use a slur when you could just as easily use another name? Why is it so important to you to be able to say “Redskins”?Hide behind a BS poll? Agenda? Negative to both. Speaking of agendas, the article you linked was written by a lady with an agenda. She didn't like the age of the people polled, she didn't like the region they were polled, not enough women were polled, those polled were not Indian enough for her, and on and on. The NBC Sports article which references the Washington Post poll was conducted nationwide with a sample size of 500 native americans. I'm not sure why this isn't good enough for some. If there was a majority of those polled who took offense to the team name 'Redskins' the Washington Post would be among the first to suggest changing the name since they are not exactly a conservative newspaper, they are actually quite liberal.
You got me, I'm intent on using a slur and it is really important to me...guess what I'm thinking right now, since you know my motives and all. How you arrived at this conclusion is perplexing. The Redskins team name has been around since 1933; I find it amazing that the super woke people are intent on changing a traditional name, which was not intended on being a slur, within just the past few years. Why all the new "enlightened" types need to impose yourselves in areas you should not be concerned with is annoying since the vast majority of you all are most likely not even .01% native american.
What question did you pose that I haven't answered? I don't recall anything of significance. The only thing BS are the two articles you linked.
23 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:Let me guess, your against wearing a mask, against gun control, and see nothing wrong with the confederate flag?
Let me guess, you're thrilled with social distancing, being locked up at home, and this was the best 4th of July you could ever have imagined.
-
7 minutes ago, Billl said:
You bring up a good point. It’s pretty astounding how many of America’s “heroes” became famous via being prolific at murder and oppression. What do you make of that?
I have no idea where you came up with this. You seem to be several slices of bread short of a full loaf.
-
Just now, RaoulDuke79 said:
Not surprising at all. Let's see what's offensive in another 20 years, and if they need to recalibrate.
20 years? Nah, I think we'll only need to wait 20 days to find out what else is offensive. Hopefully the native americans the Cleveland Indians speak with won't care if they keep the current team name. That would be the best outcome.
2 minutes ago, Augie said:If they start going after little Irish Catholic Leprechauns I’m gonna get angry!
Are you referring to the Fighting Irish? If so, they'll change their name to the Fighting Drunks. The drunk people won't care just as long as Notre Dame buys them a Harp or Guiness pint.
-
1 minute ago, RaoulDuke79 said:
its already the Cleveland Indians.
Indians ready to discuss changing team name
https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/1982302Just sad, but not surprising.
-
18 minutes ago, eball said:
@Happy please let me know the nickname of a professional US sports team that 10% of white people find offensive.
I’ll be waiting.
Too many people find something offensive nowadays. Right now it is the Redskins, tomorrow it will be the Cleveland Indians, and coming soon it will be the Bills. I mean, Wild Bill Cody fans can't be pleased with the Buffalo Bills team name; it disrespects an old West legend....right?. Things are out of control, and people who shouldn't care but show righteous indignation are a big part of the problem.
Here is an article from May, 2016 which details that 90% of Native Americans do not find the team name of Redskins offensive: https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/washington-redskins/new-poll-finds-90-percent-native-americans-not-offended-redskins-name.
Why is it that non-Native Americans have a problem with it? They were the Boston Redskins starting in 1933, moved to Washington in 1937 and have been there ever since. Now all of a sudden, within the last couple of years, the "enlightened" folk take it upon themselves to interject themselves where they don't belong. You can stop waiting.
-
15 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:
Cheers ? folks. Hopefully everyone wakes up with the same amount of fingers as they had when they woke up today.
I wonder how Jason Pierre-Paul feels about the 4th of July
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Eh.
If you have an infant and a small todder with you, the sequencing can be problematic. Do you put the baby and the todder in the car so they're buckled in and protected from weather, before you unload the groceries? Or do you leave the baby and toddler in the sun/rain/snow and try to keep one eye on them while unloading? Then, if the kids are still with the cart and you return it, you get to lug/walk them back to the car from the cart which can be tougher than it sounds if the toddler is cranky and does the tantrum/collapse thing. Or, if they're in the car, do you leave them there while you return the cart and risk the car being jacked along with your kids - it has happened?
Some stores have a lot of cart corrals so it's literally a couple steps. Some, it's a hike.
If it is a nice day (no precipitation) then unload the groceries and take the child with you to the cart return. If there is precipitation, put the child in the car first, unload the groceries, then return the cart. No one else should have to pay for someone else's convenience; it isn't right for another person to have to work around someone else's cart that they left in a parking space or against a neighboring car where that owner will have to deal with the cart which wasn't theirs. Returning a cart shouldn't take more than 30 seconds in pretty much any lot.
-
1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:
It’s not a minority among the native population. In any event it’s a whole lot of people who view “redskins” as a slur. It’s also kind of ridiculous to point to intent. It’s something that a lot of people view as a racial slur and there’s certainly good reason why.To me it’s similar to this true story. I have had a friend since kindergarten and I’m 51 now. I used to call him Billy. We were kids and it differentiated him from my uncle Bill. One day when I was in college he says to me “You know, you’re the only one that still calls me Billy.” He was telling me that he knew it wasn’t intentional, but that it was disrespectful. So I started calling him Bill. It cost me nothing to do that and it was a respectful way to treat another person. That’s what this amounts to with Washington.
It is a minority of the native population, as of May, 2016, only 10% found the team name 'Redskins' offensive. The link is a few posts above.
I'm glad you're still friends with your childhood friend, those are important the older we get. It is an apples to oranges comparison, though. One person's preference as to how they want to be referred versus a long standing, major sports team name where a small minority of individuals take offense.
-
10 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
So the NBC Sports article clearly states that a Washington Post poll (national survey) found that 90% of Native Americans are not offended by 'Redskins.'
Then you link some obscure native appropriations site which arrives at a completely opposite case. Both articles are from May 19, 2016. I think I'll side with the NBC Sports article since I think your link is both fabricating the truth and has a political slant.
I'm sure some Native Americans are offended by the name, but again, it is the minority. Let's say that number grew to 20% (from 10% in 2016), does it really make sense to change a long standing, traditional name for 20% of a population? I couldn't care less what non Native Americans think about this. If the Redskins change their name, it is financially motivated due to cowardly corporate sponsors dropping the team. I side with Dan Snyder on this and I hope he finds new sponsors.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Warcodered said:Quote
After years of controversy surrounding the Redskins name, The Washington Post released a new poll that finds 9 in 10 Native Americans are not offended by the name. The poll surveyed opinions on the team name from more than 500 Native Americans across the country.
But way to go cherry picking a video of politically motivated people, and Jon Steward (which is satire, by the way).
-
2 hours ago, BarleyNY said:
Most people, I’d think. Why else would someone intentionally continue to use the old name other than because they are acting out?I think there is just a loud minority who are taken back by the name Redskins. Not all Native Americans are offended, or even care, by the Redskins team name; and that very well may be the majority of tribes. Nobody who addresses the team name is degrading Native Americans, in fact, I believe they don't even think about it; I know I fall into that category. I think only a minority of all Americans are supposedly bothered by the name, which is most likely politically motivated.
-
Edmunds has certainly improved between 2018 and 2019, and he is not at his ceiling. He still needs improvement on run defense (had gap assignment issues last year) as well as situational understanding (I suspect he blew the assignment on the 3rd and 18 debacle against Houston where no one was covering the middle between the deep DBs and the D-line).
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Bangarang said:
Are people going to kneel and protest during the Black National Anthem?
I do wonder what would happen to a white player who takes a knee during the BNA. Will he be fined? Suspended by the league? Flogged by the media? Considered a pariah by his teammates? So many possibilities.
Redskins facing severe pressure to change name.
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
You have no question of substance, just ones that go down rabbit holes. Go to your safe space.