Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Usually I am on board with throwing out PC rules, but this situation is different. Redskins is basically the equivalent to calling them the DC "darkies" or worse. What's the harm in changing it to the warriors? It goes against the principle of being a racist? The principle of pissing off people you can get away with crapping on? The principle of never changing anything because you are too stuck in your ways? One Thing, this is never an Issue until the Redskins are winning, the last time this was brought up was in 1991/1992 during the Super Bowl (Skins vs Bills) People only become political correctness when something is at a high profile, if the Redskins start losing people will just forget like they have for over 20 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just in Atlanta Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) Aside from creating a strawman, why does this issue need to be clouded by attacks on the mythical PC police? No one in this thread fits that description. And if you can't understand why the term "Redskin" is intrinsically offensive, then you're being either willfully obtuse or intellectually bankrupt. Acknowledging a team name is a literally a racial epithet doesn't equate to a loss of freedom Now we're getting nasty but I'll bite. You really think hordes of people are offended by the term redskin? In this age when everything is dictated by political correctness, when people are routinely fired for saying ill-advised but harmless off-color jokes, when (read the examples above)? We'd have people boycotting, screaming, marching. It's manufactured. Edited January 13, 2013 by Just in Atlanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Now we're getting nasty but I'll bite. You really think hordes of people are offended by the term redskin? In this age when everything is dictated by political correctness, when people are routinely fired for saying ill-advised but harmless off-color jokes, when (read the examples above)? We'd have people boycotting, screaming, marching. It's manufactured. Exactly nobody is protesting & If the PC Police are upset over a team name why not giving Indians back their land, is changing a name going to make up for over 500 years of crimes against Indians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Now we're getting nasty but I'll bite. You really think hordes of people are offended by the term redskin? In this age when everything is dictated by political correctness, when people are routinely fired for saying ill-advised but harmless off-color jokes, when (read the examples above)? We'd have people boycotting, screaming, marching. It's manufactured. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 What about these teams South Carolina Gamecocks Kansas City Chiefs Atlanta Braves Cleveland Indians Notre Dame Fighting Irish Chicago Blackhawks Utah Utes San Diego st Aztecs Florida st Seminoles Illinois Fighting Illini Now here is your slippery Slope Pirates/Buccaneers/Raiders/Vikings - Promotes rape, plundering & pillaging Cardinals/Saints - Promotes Catholicism Devils - Occult Reds - Communists Hurricanes / Lightning / Thunder / Avalanche - Disasters Dogs/Browns - Dog Fighting Football Terms - Shotgun/Pistol/Blitz/ Spread/Go Deep/Hail Mary - Weapons/war, Sex, Religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 What about these teams South Carolina Gamecocks Kansas City Chiefs Atlanta Braves Cleveland Indians Notre Dame Fighting Irish Chicago Blackhawks Utah Utes San Diego st Aztecs Florida st Seminoles Illinois Fighting Illini Now here is your slippery Slope Pirates/Buccaneers/Raiders/Vikings - Promotes rape, plundering & pillaging Cardinals/Saints - Promotes Catholicism Devils - Occult Reds - Communists Hurricanes / Lightning / Thunder / Avalanche - Disasters Dogs/Browns - Dog Fighting Football Terms - Shotgun/Pistol/Blitz/ Spread/Go Deep/Hail Mary - Weapons/war, Sex, Religion 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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. Who's shouting anyone down? He's stating his opinion just as you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 My wife is Ameican Indian (GF was full blood & GM 1/2) and she doesn't find the name offensive. The only people we know that are offended by it are uptight PC white people who get off on being d-bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I can't believe that crossdressers got time on sportscenter Well now that the crossdressers, dressed like Pigs are gone, maybe marketing can focus on attracting more Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Who's shouting anyone down? He's stating his opinion just as you are. 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. My wife is Ameican Indian (GF was full blood & GM 1/2) and she doesn't find the name offensive. The only people we know that are offended by it are uptight PC white people who get off on being d-bags. 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I've always thought that name was a horrible embarrassment. When someone gives a crap about the hideous Cleveland Indians mascot/logo, I'll take complaints about the Redskins name a lot more seriously. Funniest in this exercise in PC - people complaining about the Florida State name and mascot, and the actual Seminoles tribe telling the complainers to shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 When someone gives a crap about the hideous Cleveland Indians mascot/logo, I'll take complaints about the Redskins name a lot more seriously. Funniest in this exercise in PC - people complaining about the Florida State name and mascot, and the actual Seminoles tribe telling the complainers to shut up. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maguire's Beer Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 And if you can't understand why the term "Redskin" is intrinsically offensive, then you're being either willfully obtuse or intellectually bankrupt. Acknowledging a team name is a literally a racial epithet doesn't equate to a loss of freedom +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 When someone gives a crap about the hideous Cleveland Indians mascot/logo, I'll take complaints about the Redskins name a lot more seriously. Funniest in this exercise in PC - people complaining about the Florida State name and mascot, and the actual Seminoles tribe telling the complainers to shut up. neither of those examples is what the discussion is about, but for the record Chief Wahoo needs to go too. Nobody here is complaining about Florida State. The only reasons anyone can give for not changing the highly derogatory name are tradition and some imaginary line in the sand against the "pc police" and frankly both of those reasons are pretty terrible. You don't change the name because it's not pc or any other buzzword. You don't change it because the original owners were racist or fans that support it are racist, because I don't believe either of those is true. You change the name because it's a relic from a time in our history that we have moved past. We are better than that. Or we should be. You change the name because it's the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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". Except it's the opinion of multiple people. But thanks for playing, bright boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Except it's the opinion of multiple people. But thanks for playing, bright boy. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 My wife is Ameican Indian (GF was full blood & GM 1/2) and she doesn't find the name offensive. The only people we know that are offended by it are uptight PC white people who get off on being d-bags. I have two nieces who are half Native American, in their late 20s, both are very involved in their heritage, and both are big sports fans. One of them is completely offended by the nickname "Redskins" and has written several papers on the subject. The other is completely indifferent to it and thinks it means nothing. One can easily see just from that why this is a polarizing issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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. But you were responding to my post which made no mention of or even hinted at cries of a police state (if, however, it was government and not the league or owner that imposed the name change I'm not sure how you would defend that). It's not that you don't approve of the name that's irritating. In fact, if a new team was entertaining it I'd be more understanding of the opposition given the way our castrated society has been conditioned to racial hypersensitivity that goes beyond anything anyone could rationally explain, that people would have a problem with it. But the Skins have been around for decades and are a big deal to a lot of people and making a big deal of it is silly. Further, and the point I was making, is I'm sure a handful of Indians are anxious to jump on the racial/ethnic victim bandwagon and have a grievance to complain about, but by and large the people who seem to whine about this the most are white people who feel good about themselves by taking on someone else's bull **** cause. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion. They think I'm a bigot, I think they're pussies. That's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 But you were responding to my post which made no mention of or even hinted at cries of a police state (if, however, it was government and not the league or owner that imposed the name change I'm not sure how you would defend that). It's not that you don't approve of the name that's irritating. In fact, if a new team was entertaining it I'd be more understanding of the opposition given the way our castrated society has been conditioned to racial hypersensitivity that goes beyond anything anyone could rationally explain, that people would have a problem with it. But the Skins have been around for decades and are a big deal to a lot of people and making a big deal of it is silly. Further, and the point I was making, is I'm sure a handful of Indians are anxious to jump on the racial/ethnic victim bandwagon and have a grievance to complain about, but by and large the people who seem to whine about this the most are white people who feel good about themselves by taking on someone else's bull **** cause. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion. They think I'm a bigot, I think they're pussies. That's just the way it is. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Or, ya know, adults can judge each situation on a case by case basis, because slippery slope arguments are largely based on bull ****. The idea that if one team changes its horribly offensive nickname then ALL THE OTHER TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE will have to change their names too defies all logic. Just go back to these uniforms: call them the Warriors and be done with it. I'm sure the league would love to be able sell all new merchandise. It's just so simple. They even have the name registered already. This thread is embarrassing on many fronts. I have two nieces who are half Native American, in their late 20s, both are very involved in their heritage, and both are big sports fans. One of them is completely offended by the nickname "Redskins" and has written several papers on the subject. The other is completely indifferent to it and thinks it means nothing. One can easily see just from that why this is a polarizing issue. Or the thousands that protested them at the Super Bowl against us? It amazes me when someone comes out and argues "I I know a guy that's not offended so its perfectly ok" When it comes down to it - it's derogatory and any history or tradition a team needs to preserve isn't held in its nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts