bisonbrigade Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Dude you are the worst. just speaking truth. it is hypocritical to speak about decency when people knock a team name but watch that garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 just speaking truth. it is hypocritical to speak about decency when people knock a team name but watch that garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 just speaking truth. it is hypocritical to speak about decency when people knock a team name but watch that garbage. Not sure why you would assume I was a fan of any of the things you mentioned, but I did notice that you conveniently didn't answer the question: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not political correctness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 just speaking truth. it is hypocritical to speak about decency when people knock a team name but watch that garbage. No you're not. Shoehorning your Fox News bullet point/talking points into this discussion may seem "truthful" to you but all you are doing is reaffirming the beliefs of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum that people who get all their information from Fox News are in fact stupid. You are really losing on this one. And I don't necessarily think this is a black and white issue- as liberal as I am, I can see the argument for keeping the name. In fact, I think the Cleveland Indians logo is far more offensive than the Redskins' name. But by citing Miley Cyrus and making some preposterous argument that no one is able to follow, you are forever damaging your credibility with every post. Or you are trolling in which case, you got me and congratulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Not sure why you would assume I was a fan of any of the things you mentioned, but I did notice that you conveniently didn't answer the question: What level of negative connotation would "redskin" have to possess before a name change became a question of common decency, and not political correctness? That's an excellent question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Perhaps this ad should have been run the first night of the NFL draft as to really provide context to those who are fans of the team. That is really who you need to sway. If/Once Washington's fans start requesting a change en masse is when their cause will really take off. Edited June 11, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 This country is getting way too offended and over sensitive. Change the name to creepy crackers and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 This country is getting way too offended and over sensitive. Change the name to creepy crackers and move on. You mean, this country is slowly moving towards straight white males respecting minorities, women, non heterosexual, and transgenders? That's not overly sensitive. It's morally correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Perhaps this ad should have been run the first night of the NFL draft as to really provide context to those who are fans of the team. That is really who you need to sway. If/Once Washington's fans start requesting a change en masse is when their cause will really take off. This view makes a mistake of judging who is the decision maker here and what is the market this business is working to attract to make a profit. As was recently demonstrated in the NBA, the true decision-maker is not the one billionaire but the multiple billionaires which comprise the other league owners. The market that these multiple billionaires are trying to attract are the millions (potentially billions of eyeballs) that get the TV networks to ship billions of $ to the other owners. The reality of this is (and should be) not what the local Redskins fans want, but instead what is most entertaining to the fans. This is not some ultimately petty argument about what Snyder (or a Sterling) thinks in their own little world), the real answer is what is best for presenting the product. The product is football and not the distraction of whether the name is an honor or insulting to a specific group. Defending Snyder's right to call his team what he wants is simply a distraction from football. This commercial and the Senate vote are real world indicators that this distraction must go. The Deadskins are gone as a name, because it s creating too much of a distraction for selling the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 http://www.cbssports...2014-nba-finals One argument I hear about changing the name Redskins is "Indians don't even really mind the name!". Hopefully an Indian nation paying out of pocket to put an ad on national television can squelch this misinformation. I can't wait to hear what the Janelle Ambrosia fan club around here has to say about the ad... One nation out of how many? The numbers aren't backing up your claim... that's like asking one state out of 50 who to be the next President of the United States. PRETTY sure that isn't nearly enough, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 One nation out of how many? The numbers aren't backing up your claim... that's like asking one state out of 50 who to be the next President of the United States. PRETTY sure that isn't nearly enough, buddy. that isnt what its like at all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) One nation out of how many? The numbers aren't backing up your claim... that's like asking one state out of 50 who to be the next President of the United States. PRETTY sure that isn't nearly enough, buddy. The National Congress of American Indians (which sponsored the commercial) was founded in 1944, and represents several hundred tribes throughout the United States including Alaska. Edited June 11, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jukester Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The fact that that we're still discussing this issue in 2014 speaks volumes about the people in charge of the NFL and the general apathy that most non Native Americans have toward the subject. I was at super bowl XXVI in Minneapolis when the Bills played you know who. There was a concerted effort then to bring this to light and change attitudes. Here we are 22 years later, yes 22, and still the same old people saying the same old things as to why the name doesn't need to be changed. Really unbelievable to me. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/21/sports/super-bowl-xxvi-notebook-the-protest-that-won-t-go-away.html http://articles.philly.com/1992-01-20/sports/26037056_1_clyde-bellecourt-indian-rights-native-americans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekJ Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Phew! That's some message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuncha Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Change the name to Washington Foreskins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 This view makes a mistake of judging who is the decision maker here and what is the market this business is working to attract to make a profit. As was recently demonstrated in the NBA, the true decision-maker is not the one billionaire but the multiple billionaires which comprise the other league owners. The market that these multiple billionaires are trying to attract are the millions (potentially billions of eyeballs) that get the TV networks to ship billions of $ to the other owners. The reality of this is (and should be) not what the local Redskins fans want, but instead what is most entertaining to the fans. This is not some ultimately petty argument about what Snyder (or a Sterling) thinks in their own little world), the real answer is what is best for presenting the product. The product is football and not the distraction of whether the name is an honor or insulting to a specific group. Defending Snyder's right to call his team what he wants is simply a distraction from football. This commercial and the Senate vote are real world indicators that this distraction must go. The Deadskins are gone as a name, because it s creating too much of a distraction for selling the product. I don't disagree; however, the fact is those billionaires(from the NFL) would have been far more embarrassed if that spot had run during their Draft then the NBA playoffs that may not or may not have the the same fans. In reality if local fans disapprove of the name and voice that they do there is, perhaps, no reason to for Snyder to continue with its use. Yes these other avenues are worth pursuing certainly but my point was two fold. First, local fans as they see themselves as stakeholders in the outcome(change their understanding and you hopefully sway their allegiance ) and second to ensure the correct audience sees your message. To my earlier statement, NFL fans(which include those billionaire owners) are not necessarily NBA fans and that is who they should be targeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 just speaking truth. it is hypocritical to speak about decency when people knock a team name but watch that garbage. You included Modern Family on your list of things that are indecent. There's only one reason why that show, which preaches nothing but positive family values and positivity, would be on your list. Just one tiny reason... And the fact that that one element makes you classify Modern Family as somehow indecent says all we need to know about you. And it makes total sense why your panties are in such a wad over a simple name change. You, sir, are hilariously disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 ROFL IN LoL... And they are boning me by leaving it open! Man, I can't buy a break! LoL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Boning sounds indecent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John in Jax Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You included Modern Family on your list of things that are indecent. There's only one reason why that show, which preaches nothing but positive family values and positivity, would be on your list. Just one tiny reason... And the fact that that one element makes you classify Modern Family as somehow indecent says all we need to know about you. And it makes total sense why your panties are in such a wad over a simple name change. You, sir, are hilariously disingenuous. For those of us who have NEVER watched even 5 seconds of Modern Family, don't read or watch ANY of the celebrity worship magazines or TV shows, and have NO idea what the show is about, please explain what you're talking about. Thanks. Also, political correctness has made this country much worse, in many different ways, than it was 30 years ago. And "PC" is exactly what's driving this whole "the name 'Redskins' offends me" movement. I hope to he!! that Daniel Snyder stays true to his word, and never changes the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts