Captain Caveman Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) I'm not touching arguing with you. Edited June 16, 2014 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) The only people who are dramatic about this issue are the ones hellbent on keeping the name the same. Because it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the Snyder should change the name of the franchise. Individual usage of the word is not germane to the conversation. Ask a question that actually fits into this topic, or ask that question in PPP in its own thread and I'll happily oblige. Fine. I'll take you up on that discussion eventually on PPP (after I look up what germane means). But here are my questions. Who are you to attempt to shame anyone into doing anything? Do you hold yourself in such high regard that you believe others should abide by your own moral standards? Because that's what this debate is about. You point to someone making a bad point and call him "the voice of the people who don't find the name offensive." He may be the voice in favor of the name, but the voice on other side is wholly composed with arrogant and holier-than-thou undertones. Edited June 16, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 But here are my questions. Who are you to attempt to shame anyone into doing anything? Do you hold yourself in such high regard that you believe others should abide by your own moral standards? I'm not shaming anyone into doing anything. I've said up front that I personally am not offended by the word and whatever Snyder decides to do I'm still going to watch football games. It's the name of a team, nothing more. And if everyone lived by my personal moral standards this world would be a far worse place, believe you me. But again, this isn't about me. And it's not about you. It's about Dan Snyder and the Native Americans who are offended by the name. Clearly the Native Americans who have been protesting this issue for decades (not just with this ad) feel passionately that the word is indeed offensive. They get to make that call, I don't. If they find the term offensive enough to spend time and money on the issue then I'll listen. Because that's what this debate is about. You point to someone making a bad point and call him "the voice of the people who don't find the name offensive." He may be the voice in favor of the name, but the voice on other side is wholly composed with arrogant and holier-than-thou undertones. This isn't what the issue is about. This is your own baggage you (and the others on here who feel the same way) are bringing to the topic. Because the word isn't offensive to you it can't be offensive to anyone else. That's the hilarious thing about this, you lecture me above about who am I to shame anyone, but who are you to say that Native Americans can or cannot be offended by the word? That's laughably hypocritical. That's where pride comes in. You've dug your heels in on the issue when you first heard about the objections, whether that was yesterday or ten years ago, and now no matter what someone tells you -- even if that information comes from Sitting Bull himself -- you're not willing to listen. You see it as someone telling you that you're wrong and thus taking a "holier than though" approach but that's not it at all. Again, that's you projecting things onto the issue that aren't there. You could take the time to really hear their side of the argument and re-examine your own opinions but doing so would be admitting defeat. And we can't have that. It's better to be rigid than to be thoughtful I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I'm not shaming anyone into doing anything. I've said up front that I personally am not offended by the word and whatever Snyder decides to do I'm still going to watch football games. It's the name of a team, nothing more. And if everyone lived by my personal moral standards this world would be a far worse place, believe you me. But again, this isn't about me. And it's not about you. It's about Dan Snyder and the Native Americans who are offended by the name. Clearly the Native Americans who have been protesting this issue for decades (not just with this ad) feel passionately that the word is indeed offensive. They get to make that call, I don't. If they find the term offensive enough to spend time and money on the issue then I'll listen. This isn't what the issue is about. This is your own baggage you (and the others on here who feel the same way) are bringing to the topic. Because the word isn't offensive to you it can't be offensive to anyone else. That's the hilarious thing about this, you lecture me above about who am I to shame anyone, but who are you to say that Native Americans can or cannot be offended by the word? That's laughably hypocritical. That's where pride comes in. You've dug your heels in on the issue when you first heard about the objections, whether that was yesterday or ten years ago, and now no matter what someone tells you -- even if that information comes from Sitting Bull himself -- you're not willing to listen. You see it as someone telling you that you're wrong and thus taking a "holier than though" approach but that's not it at all. Again, that's you projecting things onto the issue that aren't there. You could take the time to really hear their side of the argument and re-examine your own opinions but doing so would be admitting defeat. And we can't have that. It's better to be rigid than to be thoughtful I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I'm not touching arguing with you. http://youtu.be/BgXDYiHhp5Y I forget how great that movie was. It was one of the last to come out before CGI took over.I haven't found anyone to go see How To Train Your Dragon 2 with me yet. The only people who are dramatic about this issue are the ones hellbent on keeping the name the same. Because it's completely irrelevant to whether or not the Snyder should change the name of the franchise. Individual usage of the word is not germane to the conversation. Ask a question that actually fits into this topic, or ask that question in PPP in its own thread and I'll happily oblige. nah, I am just tired of all the sensationalized headlines that mean so little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) nah, I am just tired of all the sensationalized headlines that mean so little. I agree, I'm tired of this issue too because to me it's a non-issue. What is interesting to me is how many people are so passionate about keeping the name. So far I've yet to hear a good reason other than tradition. I'd be pissed if they changed the Bills' name, but I'd get over it (so long as they stayed in Buffalo of course). It wouldn't change my memories or love of the team and I can't imagine it would change any Washington fans' love of their team either. It's just a name. Edited June 16, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Actually, I think Greggy and others are wrong because the issue here is not about a sole billionaire like Snyder but because the real chooser are the many billionaires and millionaires who are Snyders' partners. Just like billionaire Donald Sterling, his judgment can simply be overridden by the $ outcomes for his partners. Actually, the morality of this issue is NOT going to be determined by these arguments but by the actual source of the $ the TV nets. They have shown they can be manipulated by concerted action by the players whether they are being PC or just pissed off. Not only did we see this with the players together wearing their sweats backward after Sterling exercised his right to say stupid things, but already the NFL players vetoed Rush Limbaugh as potential part owner of the Rams. If the players choose to make a point of this the owners will cave without regard of your arguments. The irony is that by arguing this issue one actually builds the relevance of this issue by distracting from the subject as a controversy and heightens the possibility that the TV nets will force the owners to curtail the free speech of individual owners. Reality rather than ideological arguments will determine what is right. I'm not shaming anyone into doing anything. I've said up front that I personally am not offended by the word and whatever Snyder decides to do I'm still going to watch football games. It's the name of a team, nothing more. And if everyone lived by my personal moral standards this world would be a far worse place, believe you me. But again, this isn't about me. And it's not about you. It's about Dan Snyder and the Native Americans who are offended by the name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Do you hold yourself in such high regard that you believe others should abide by your own moral standards? When that personal moral standard is the golden rule, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 When that personal moral standard is the golden rule, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 We'll see what the USPTO has to say very soon. As I was saying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Dan Snyder trademarked "Washington Warriors" a year after this suit was filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts