Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 They were no more savage than the Europeans. History is written by the winners and the Native Americans lost. It's a fair point. I could draw some distinctions, but I get where you're going. However if you were to name a team the Visigoths I doubt there'd be much uproar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 it isn't obvious, take banning books from schools, it starts off with mein kampf & can end with Spongebob big adventure' its just how far do you want to go Dear lord. This doesn't have to turn into a major free speech issue. In fact it's not. No ones banning the name. It should be a common sense and courtesy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 They should revoke Columbus day before changing the name of the Redskins. And It Starts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExWNYer Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 This thread was started by the OP as an FYI that those over the hill morons in DC were finally, thankfully hanging up their dresses. It has officially, sadly devolved into a PPP thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Yup - thanks for taking the time to share more. In this case, I feel like the strongest supporters of keeping the name really have no horse in the race with regards to the term "redskin" and are raging against the great liberal machine that's stealing their rights.... This doesn't have to be about that. This can be so simple. The term redskin really kinda sucks, and a simple switch to something like warriors does nothing to hurt nearly anyone arguing to keep the name. Really no one loses by switching the name. That's why it's devolved into some slippery slope argument - because there's not a great reason to keep it at this point. You can say the same thing about those in favor of scrapping the name. On a related note, how about Syracuse no longer being the OrangeMEN? Obviously nobody got my packers joke. Oh well. This thread was started by the OP as an FYI that those over the hill morons in DC were finally, thankfully hanging up their dresses. It has officially, sadly devolved into a PPP thread. It's the internet. What did you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hater Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Dear lord. This doesn't have to turn into a major free speech issue. In fact it's not. No ones banning the name. It should be a common sense and courtesy one. But it is about free speech, the DC Mayor said you want a new Stadium in DC, Change the team name, should be about common sense & courtesy "Yes" but this is a ultimatum This thread was started by the OP as an FYI that those over the hill morons in DC were finally, thankfully hanging up their dresses. It has officially, sadly devolved into a PPP thread. I suppose you prefer thread on how Rex Ryan is a D-Bag or another Tebow thread, at least we are talking intelligently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 But it is about free speech, the DC Mayor said you want a new Stadium in DC, Change the team name, should be about common sense & courtesy "Yes" but this is a ultimatum I suppose you prefer thread on how Rex Ryan is a D-Bag or another Tebow thread, at least we are talking intelligently I believe his actual quote was that the name wasn't a hard line deal breaker but he feels like they should atleast discuss it, and explore options. Which, if they are receiving public dollars, is fair. He's not writing a law banning the name, but saying its something that might need to be in play to get a partially public funded project going. I don't claim to have seen everything he's said but the quotes I read were on that line of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExWNYer Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I suppose you prefer thread on how Rex Ryan is a D-Bag or another Tebow thread, at least we are talking intelligently The point was that the original spirit of the thread has completely changed. As someone else pointed out, that's the internet. So be it. Personally, I don't find anything that you've posted in this thread to be overly intelligent, but you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 it isn't obvious, take banning books from schools, it starts off with mein kampf & can end with Spongebob big adventure' its just how far do you want to go ??? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just in Atlanta Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Apologies to the OP for being one of the posters who turned a thread about the Hogettes into a debate on political correctness. I have a strong view on this subject, that offense over the name redskin is manufactured, and that people who are offended by a term that mentions someone's skin color are overly sensitive. I also feel political correctness is one of the biggest threats to freedom, as it makes us overly sensitive and prone to collectivism over the individual--I have tens if not hundreds of examples--and that this redskin thing is symbolic of the path we're taking. But I would hope we could be reasonably civil about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Apologies to the OP for being one of the posters who turned a thread about the Hogettes into a debate on political correctness. I have a strong view on this subject, that offense over the name redskin is manufactured, and that people who are offended by a term that mentions someone's skin color are overly sensitive. I also feel political correctness is one of the biggest threats to freedom, as it makes us overly sensitive and prone to collectivism over the individual--I have tens if not hundreds of examples--and that this redskin thing is symbolic of the path we're taking. But I would hope we could be reasonably civil about this. Bring them out - the government hasn't outlawed the name so I'm curious to see if your hundreds of examples are all free market challenges which are the very definition of people expressing their freedom to not like the teams freedom of speech. I haven't seen anyone say the government should intervene, just that the team should stop clinging to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just in Atlanta Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) You're really asking me how political correctness has taken away freedom and free choice? 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. Do you want more? . Edited January 13, 2013 by Just in Atlanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You're really asking me how political correctness has taken away freedom and free choice? 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. Do you want more? . 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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. How do you figure? Mandates and bans are by definition limitations on freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 How do you figure? Mandates and bans are by definition limitations on freedom. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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? Now we're conflating principles. The dude's point was that political correctness is incrementally encroaching on freedoms, not necessarily that the Federal government is acting accordingly. If you want to debate the virtues of these limitations of freedom that's another issue, one I'm not currently interested in delving into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just in Atlanta Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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. I was about to quote a line from 1984, but that would be a cliche. You have no idea what freedom is. PC freaks are, on a daily basis, taking away free choice out of fear of offense. Enough of this jibber jabbering for me. Turning off the computer to watch the Pats get beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You're really asking me how political correctness has taken away freedom and free choice? 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. Do you want more? None of those take away freedom of choice. Sorry the world is changing. Seems to be pretty scary for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Now we're conflating principles. The dude's point was that political correctness is incrementally encroaching on freedoms, not necessarily that the Federal government is acting accordingly. If you want to debate the virtues of these limitations of freedom that's another issue, one I'm not currently interested in delving into. 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". I was about to quote a line from 1984, but that would be a cliche. You have no idea what freedom is. Further irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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". A privilege granted and given by who exactly? The most frustrating aspect of all of this garbage is the servile mindset so many of you seem to have. You shouldn't be asking on whose authority you are entitled to act, but rather question any authority that seeks to restrict you. Damn man. None of those take away freedom of choice. Sorry the world is changing. Seems to be pretty scary for you. This response is devoid of anything remotely resembling truth or logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts