US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

[26CornerBlitz]

Offensiveness is a vacillating standard on both personal and societal levels and defining it has always been, and remains to be, a completely subjective process. As it should be. There can be no absolute (and, therefore, rigid) definition of something that, by its very nature, requires room for growth and change as human beings in regard to such things as tolerance, respect, decency, etcetera. To ask for a definition that is concrete in its rigidity before accepting whether or not something can be viewed as offensive is nothing more than intellectual sleight of hand. It gives the appearance of being reasonable when it is not. You are saying, “I will find it offensive when you prove to me in unequivocal terms how it is offensive. Until then, all of your arguments are moot because they are simply vague and amorphous.” - all the while knowing such unequivocal terms do not exist.

 

Personally, the concept of offensiveness is not so vague as to preclude me from believing that a term that refers to an entire population of people by the color of their skin should fit somewhere within that concept.

You have demanded that those that feel this way provide an unambiguous process for determining offensiveness. I do not believe such a thing can exist. However, let me make you this offer: Why don’t you provide your definition of offensiveness, or what you think the definition should be, and I will try to structure an argument based solely on that definition as to whether or not the term “Redskins” is offensive?

Very well stated.

[FireChan]

 

 

Offensiveness is a vacillating standard on both personal and societal levels and defining it has always been, and remains to be, a completely subjective process. As it should be. There can be no absolute (and, therefore, rigid) definition of something that, by its very nature, requires room for growth and change as human beings in regard to such things as tolerance, respect, decency, etcetera. To ask for a definition that is concrete in its rigidity before accepting whether or not something can be viewed as offensive is nothing more than intellectual sleight of hand. It gives the appearance of being reasonable when it is not. You are saying, “I will find it offensive when you prove to me in unequivocal terms how it is offensive. Until then, all of your arguments are moot because they are simply vague and amorphous.” - all the while knowing such unequivocal terms do not exist.

 

Personally, the concept of offensiveness is not so vague as to preclude me from believing that a term that refers to an entire population of people by the color of their skin should fit somewhere within that concept.

You have demanded that those that feel this way provide an unambiguous process for determining offensiveness. I do not believe such a thing can exist. However, let me make you this offer: Why don’t you provide your definition of offensiveness, or what you think the definition should be, and I will try to structure an argument based solely on that definition as to whether or not the term “Redskins” is offensive?

 

I think that's the point though. The "it's offensive, change it" crowd all contradict each other. You ( the plural) should come up with your own definition of "offensive" and use it to frame your argument. The side defending the name (or Snyder's right to the name) has no such burden.

 

Any definition of offensive can easily be turned into "more people are offended by gay marriage." DC Tom did it already. It's a fool's errand.

[Beerball]

That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that, if you're going to judge strictly by "people are offended," you are going to run into having that same judgement used with respect to other issues.

 

So you'd (the general "you," not the specific) better damn well clear up your definition of "offensive" before it blows up in your face.

Same sex marriage has been deemed legal in XX states to this point. It doesn't "matter" whether someone finds it offensive unless they can get a court to reverse itself.

 

This specific argument revolves around the use of a word (not a practice/act/law etc.) that is offensive to a segment of the population. As I said in the very first thread on this subject...I have no "right" to comment on whether the word is offensive or not. The word is not now and never has been hurled at my ancestors or myself. All I can do is ask myself two questions:

 

Do I truly believe that a segment of the population finds the word offensive?

 

What is the right thing for Dan Snyder to do?

 

People obfuscating the topic by bringing in terms like PC, comparisons to Fighting Irish etc. etc. etc. are in my mind afraid to answer those two questions honestly. Instead they would rather muddy the waters, shout from the rooftops, demean, condescend & hide behind meaningless arguments etc. rather than answer two simple questions.

 

No one on this site bemoans the "pussification" of our country more than I; this is not that. This is doing the right thing vs. doing the wrong thing. I know that is an outdated concept, but, it is one that I stand behind.

[FireChan]

Trust me, I have unfortunately read this entire thread. You have made no sense whatsoever, in my opinion. You also didn't make an iota of sense, again, in my opinion in the other threads on this topic.

 

Stop trying to show everyone how smart you are and ask yourself this simple question..."What is the right thing to do in this situation?" Stop your spurious arguments that do nothing, in my opinion, but muddy the waters and answer that simple question. If you are arguing for arguments sake then I'd say that this topic isn't the place for it. If you really believe that it is right that Redskins remains the nickname of the Washington NFL team then I question your character, your moral fiber.

 

What is right?

 

What is right?

 

I'm no fan of the name. I'm really not. But then there's the whole, "defend to the death the right to say it," thing. And while no one has legally limited or forced Snyder to do anything (yet), other parties using their right of Free Speech to condemn someone else for using their right of Free Speech doesn't sit well with me. Which is why I give them the same treatment.

 

Snyder doesn't think it's wrong. That should be the end of it.

[Beerball]

I think that's the point though. The "it's offensive, change it" crowd all contradict each other. You ( the plural) should come up with your own definition of "offensive" and use it to frame your argument. The side defending the name (or Snyder's right to the name) has no such burden.

 

Any definition of offensive can easily be turned into "more people are offended by gay marriage." DC Tom did it already. It's a fool's errand.

What does whether or not you are offended by a practice that the courts have deemed legal have to do with the word redskin? Let me answer that one for you...absolutely nothing.

 

Snyder doesn't think it's wrong. That should be the end of it.

This is one of the more meaningless 2 sentences I've ever seen written.

 

Snyder is not the offended party. He is, as the current owner, the offender.

 

To use one of your early arguments on this topic...Does this mean that it's OK for a cotton farmer in Texas can call his farmhands !@#$s? After all, he owns the farm.

[FireChan]

What does whether or not you are offended by a practice that the courts have deemed legal have to do with the word redskin? Let me answer that one for you...absolutely nothing.

 

This is one of the more meaningless 2 sentences I've ever seen written.

 

Snyder is not the offended party. He is, as the current owner, the offender.

 

To use one of your early arguments on this topic...Does this mean that it's OK for a cotton farmer in Texas can call his farmhands !@#$s? After all, he owns the farm.

 

Yes. Morally is it ok? Perhaps not, but I don't force my morality on others.

Edited June 20, 2014 by FireChan

[Deranged Rhino]

Judging by the USPTO's lack of action against other presumably offensive trademarks, they determine offensiveness strictly on how much media attention it gets. How do you actually determine the word is offensive? Until you manage to answer that question, most of this discussion is moot.

 

And before you do answer that question, remember that far more people are offended by "gay marriage" than are by "Redskins."

That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that, if you're going to judge strictly by "people are offended," you are going to run into having that same judgement used with respect to other issues.

 

So you'd (the general "you," not the specific) better damn well clear up your definition of "offensive" before it blows up in your face.

 

This is a silly argument to make, even in the context of this silly thread.

 

The team name, while potentially offensive, does not limit anyone's freedom whether the name exists or not. You could argue it limits Snyder's, and it does, but he changes the name (or if he doesn't change the name) he's still going to own a profitable enterprise.

 

Restricting gay marriage based on the amount of people offended by it would limit people's freedoms and requires federal/state enforcement (or prohibition) to carry out. No one (at least no one serious) is arguing that the name should be forcibly changed by the government or other bodies, they are trying to use public pressure to get Snyder to come around on the issue.

 

Gay Marriage isn't about whether or not the institution offends someone or not, it's about freedom to live as you like. Whether or not Snyder should keep the name is up to him and his fellow owners and how much guff their willing to put up with in the press and in their wallets. It's a completely different situation and argument.

 

I find it interesting on one hand Native Americans have their own land, judicial system, school system, laws, etc where the government has no say, no power, no right to collect taxes, and cannot even set foot on their property in a law enforcing manner and yet from these places they want to say what is allowable for us to use.

 

You are in your own country of your own choosing aren't you? Why do you care what we do in ours?

 

How dare them! I mean, we did so much to make their lives better by giving them their own land after all. Sheesh. I mean, we put them all there, relocated them for FREE. They owe us!!! How dare them tell us what we can do in "our" land that was theirs first...

 

 

Great post.

[KDIGGZ]

has anyone trademarked "Pegulaville" yet? how about "El Pegual"? if he builds a stadium on the waterfront that whole area will forever be known as Pegulaville. i'll buy it and sell him the rights for only $1 mil

[Deranged Rhino]

Snyder doesn't think it's wrong. That should be the end of it.

 

So you favor a society ruled by the will of one?

 

I thought we lived in a republic.

[Beerball]

Yes. Morally is it ok? Perhaps not, but I don't force my morality on others.

IAhhh, live and let live. Don't ask, don't tell.

[FireChan]

 

 

So you favor a society ruled by the will of one?

 

I thought we lived in a republic.

 

We sure do live in a republic. You know what that republic should have no say in? What someone does with their private business.

 

IAhhh, live and let live. Don't ask, don't tell.

 

I can give you some examples of a couple government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide if that'll make my point seem a little less cold.

[Malazan]

No one on this site bemoans the "pussification" of our country more than I; this is not that. This is doing the right thing vs. doing the wrong thing. I know that is an outdated concept, but, it is one that I stand behind.

 

You keep using this argument which is very dishonest. This thread is not about whether it is the right thing to do. The name should have been changed a long time ago. The thread is about whether the USPTO is an agency that should be pressuring businesses to 'do the right thing'.

 

 

So you favor a society ruled by the will of one?

 

I thought we lived in a republic.

 

We have an oligarchy for government. It does not operate under the principles of a republic.

 

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

[Deranged Rhino]

We sure do live in a republic. You know what that republic should have no say in? What someone does with their private business.

 

How is the republic getting involved in private business with Snyder? No government entity is forcing him to change the name. There's currently a public debate on the issue that's caught the media's attention this news cycle (even though the debate has been ongoing for decades). Your answer implies that the boss is always right and as such everyone else should shut up about it.

 

I don't know you, but I'll assume you've worked for a boss (or bosses) at some point in your life. Let me ask you, did you ever have a boss who couldn't be trusted with a box of sharp crayons? And if so, would you still hold the same answer if he or she owned the team?

Edited June 20, 2014 by GreggyT

[FireChan]

How is the republic getting involved in private business with Snyder? No government entity is forcing him to change the name. There's currently a public debate on the issue that's caught the media's attention this news cycle (even though the debate has been ongoing for decades). Your answer implies that the boss is always right and as such everyone else should shut up about it.

 

I don't know you, but I'll assume you've worked for a boss (or bosses) at some point in your life. Let me ask you, did you ever have a boss who couldn't be trusted with a box of sharp crayons? And if so, would you still hold the same answer if he or she owned the team?

 

The US Senators writing him a letter insinuates the threat of government action, at least IMO. And the USPTO is a government entity trying to pressure him to change the name as well.

 

I don't know you, but I'll assume you've worked for a boss (or bosses) at some point in your life. Let me ask you, did you ever have a boss who couldn't be trusted with a box of sharp crayons? And if so, would you still hold the same answer if he or she owned the team?

 

Yes. Rights and fair treatment belong to everyone. Not just the ones who are competent or the ones we agree with morally.

[Deranged Rhino]

The US Senators writing him a letter insinuates the threat of government action, at least IMO.

That's public pressure not government actively involving itself. Our government is made up of individual citizens who have a right to voice their own opinions.

 

And the USPTO is a government entity trying to pressure him to change the name as well.

 

The USPTO responded to a suit brought by a plaintiff. It was done within the system and does not impact ownership or even what Snyder can or cannot call his team. This is not government intervention -- especially since there is an appeal process which the organization has already won once before.

 

Yes. Rights and fair treatment belong to everyone. Not just the ones who are competent or the ones we agree with morally.

 

So, your nightmare boss, the worst one you ever had who you know is an idiot, owns the team and says the word isn't offensive to him (or her) and thus it shouldn't be offensive to anyone... you'd throw your lot in with the mental midget out of a sense of what? Loyalty to capitalism? Loyalty to the notion that the one with the most cash rules?

 

Sure doesn't sound American to me at all -- not to mention intellectually sound.

 

EDIT: Again, I'm not suggesting or promoting a forced change of the name by an outside entity.

Edited June 20, 2014 by GreggyT

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that, if you're going to judge strictly by "people are offended," you are going to run into having that same judgement used with respect to other issues.

 

So you'd (the general "you," not the specific) better damn well clear up your definition of "offensive" before it blows up in your face.

 

I understand that too... But Thrasher, and Reds is comical. It is like saying the Snapple Ice Tea bottle is offensive because it has a slave ship on it. It is just flat out ridiculous to compare it with redskin. Even Yankees is ridiculous. When has redskin even remotely entered the relm of Yankee or Fighting Irish?

 

Its like Mill said... Shameful. Arguing to just argue. You aren't even being reasonable.

[FireChan]

That's public pressure not government actively involving itself. Our government is made up of individual citizens who have a right to voice their own opinions.

 

 

 

The USPTO responded to a suit brought by a plaintiff. It was done within the system and does not impact ownership or even what Snyder can or cannot call his team. This is not government intervention -- especially since there is an appeal process which the organization has already won once before.

 

 

 

So, your nightmare boss, the worst one you ever had who you know is an idiot, owns the team and says the word isn't offensive to him (or her) and thus it shouldn't be offensive to anyone... you'd throw your lot in with the mental midget out of a sense of what? Loyalty to capitalism? Loyalty to the notion that the one with the most cash rules?

 

Sure doesn't sound American to me at all -- not to mention intellectually sound.

 

EDIT: Again, I'm not suggesting or promoting a forced change of the name by an outside entity.

 

Loyalty to the Constitution?

[billsfan1959]

I think that's the point though. The "it's offensive, change it" crowd all contradict each other. You ( the plural) should come up with your own definition of "offensive" and use it to frame your argument. The side defending the name (or Snyder's right to the name) has no such burden.

 

Any definition of offensive can easily be turned into "more people are offended by gay marriage." DC Tom did it already. It's a fool's errand.

 

(1) Actually, those who believe it should be changed have offered "different" reasons, not "contradicting" reasons. There is nothing wrong with that. (2) You have no burden in defending the name or Snyder's right to use it? You are not on trial for your life where the burden falls on the government. You are not Daniel Snyder or affiliated with his team. You are in a debate on an internet forum and one in which you entered voluntarily. To say you have no burden in defending your position sort of defeats the whole point of a debate - and is intellectually lazy. (3) Gay marriage is absolutely irrelevant to this debate in any way, shape, or form.

 

I'm no fan of the name. I'm really not. But then there's the whole, "defend to the death the right to say it," thing. And while no one has legally limited or forced Snyder to do anything (yet), other parties using their right of Free Speech to condemn someone else for using their right of Free Speech doesn't sit well with me. Which is why I give them the same treatment.

 

Snyder doesn't think it's wrong. That should be the end of it.

(1) Free speech is not an absolute right, and the name of a business that uses a term that can, at the very least, reasonably be inferred as offensive is certainly not above condemnation from others. (2) Because Snyder doesn't think it's wrong, that should be the end of it? That is not even logic, just obstinance.

 

 

Yes. Morally is it ok? Perhaps not, but I don't force my morality on others.

Well, at least you have admitted that you, perhaps, might not think the name is morally ok. Good start.

 

We sure do live in a republic. You know what that republic should have no say in? What someone does with their private business.

 

 

 

I can give you some examples of a couple government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide if that'll make my point seem a little less cold.

 

(1) The government regulates what we can do in our private lives every single day. Besides, this is not an issue of Snyder personally using the term in his private life. This is an issue of an organization that is in the public domain using the term. (2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

[Captain Caveman]

We sure do live in a republic. You know what that republic should have no say in? What someone does with their private business.

 

Then why is the government involved in granting trademarks at all. Let the business fight it out, the best product will win, right?

[FireChan]

(1) Actually, those who believe it should be changed have offered "different" reasons, not "contradicting" reasons. There is nothing wrong with that. (2) You have no burden in defending the name or Snyder's right to use it? You are not on trial for your life where the burden falls on the government. You are not Daniel Snyder or affiliated with his team. You are in a debate on an internet forum and one in which you entered voluntarily. To say you have no burden in defending your position sort of defeats the whole point of a debate - and is intellectually lazy. (3) Gay marriage is absolutely irrelevant to this debate in any way, shape, or form.

 

 

(1) Free speech is not an absolute right, and the name of a business that uses a term that can, at the very least, reasonably be inferred as offensive is certainly not above condemnation from others. (2) Because Snyder doesn't think it's wrong, that should be the end of it? That is not even logic, just obstinance.

 

 

 

Well, at least you have admitted that you, perhaps, might not think the name is morally ok. Good start.

 

 

 

(1) The government regulates what we can do in our private lives every single day. Besides, this is not an issue of Snyder personally using the term in his private life. This is an issue of an organization that is in the public domain using the term. (2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

 

I'll go through this in pieces as well.

 

(1) Actually, those who believe it should be changed have offered "different" reasons, not "contradicting" reasons. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Wrong. Some say if just one person is offended it should be changed. Others say if it's a majority of the "offended party." How is that not contradictory?

 

(2) You have no burden in defending the name or Snyder's right to use it? You are not on trial for your life where the burden falls on the government. You are not Daniel Snyder or affiliated with his team. You are in a debate on an internet forum and one in which you entered voluntarily. To say you have no burden in defending your position sort of defeats the whole point of a debate - and is intellectually lazy.

 

You missed my point. I have no burden to define offense and how to use it. I obviously have a burden to defend my point, and I have been. But if you want to say, "we should come up with a decided upon definition," its you who better come up with a definition. Or at least attempt to.

 

(1) Free speech is not an absolute right, and the name of a business that uses a term that can, at the very least, reasonably be inferred as offensive is certainly not above condemnation from others.

 

I was of the teaching that besides "imminent danger," freedom of speech is a right. I'm not sure how you're using absolute right in this case. I never said he is above condemnation, only that I am personally against it.

 

(2) Because Snyder doesn't think it's wrong, that should be the end of it? That is not even logic, just obstinance.

 

It's my belief. Feel free to condemn me too.

 

Well, at least you have admitted that you, perhaps, might not think the name is morally ok. Good start.

 

It's no start, because I have never been "ok" with the name on any moral ground.

 

(1) The government regulates what we can do in our private lives every single day.

 

This is sometimes a bad thing, haven't you noticed that?

 

Besides, this is not an issue of Snyder personally using the term in his private life. This is an issue of an organization that is in the public domain using the term.

 

Private business though.

 

(2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

 

It's really not. You are so sure of your own morality, but so were many committers of genocide. If anything, it should make you reevaluate your own moral convictions.

Edited June 20, 2014 by FireChan

[Pneumonic]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/straighttalk/2014/06/20140620-072037.html

[DC Tom]

I understand that too... But Thrasher, and Reds is comical. It is like saying the Snapple Ice Tea bottle is offensive because it has a slave ship on it. It is just flat out ridiculous to compare it with redskin. Even Yankees is ridiculous. When has redskin even remotely entered the relm of Yankee or Fighting Irish?

 

Its like Mill said... Shameful. Arguing to just argue. You aren't even being reasonable.

 

IT WAS YOUR DEFINITION OF "OFFENSIVE," YOU IDIOT. "Reds" is as offensive by the measure you provided.

 

I'm not arguing just to argue. I'm arguing to demonstrate the capricious ambiguity of this issue. Not one person has identified "offensive" here in a way that is all useful. You're the only one that gave any soart of an objective measure...and it still sucked.

[RuntheDamnBall]

(2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

 

It's really not. You are so sure of your own morality, but so were many committers of genocide. If anything, it should make you reevaluate your own moral convictions.

You mean like when American settlers committed genocide against the Indians, I mean Redskins, while claiming the moral high ground?

[Malazan]

Stop with the straw man about whether or not it is offensive.

 

The question is whether the USPTO should be the one pressuring businesses to change their name.

 

The article posted above does a good job of explaining it: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/straighttalk/2014/06/20140620-072037.html

[26CornerBlitz]

Stop with the straw man about whether or not it is offensive.

 

The question is whether the USPTO should be the one pressuring businesses to change their name.

 

The article posted above does a good job of explaining it: http://www.sunnewsne...620-072037.html

 

You mean this "straw man" that is part of the consideration of whether a TM should be granted or revoked?

 

Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute

[FireChan]

You mean like when American settlers committed genocide against the Indians, I mean Redskins, while claiming the moral high ground?

 

That's exactly right.

[Beerball]

We sure do live in a republic. You know what that republic should have no say in? What someone does with their private business.

 

 

 

I can give you some examples of a couple government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide if that'll make my point seem a little less cold.

They didn't do the right thing, did they?

 

How many lives are at stake here? Keep tossing the mud.

 

Then, sit back and consider that those leaders who were doing nothing right were allowed to act in part because of people not wanting to push their morality on someone else. (does that phrase sound familiar?)

 

You keep using this argument which is very dishonest. This thread is not about whether it is the right thing to do. The name should have been changed a long time ago. The thread is about whether the USPTO is an agency that should be pressuring businesses to 'do the right thing'.

 

What were the prior 3-4 threads with the same people responding about? Should I pull some quotes from those?

 

Please don't try to tell me that this is about trademarks.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I am just happy that now there is finally competition to see who can make the best Redskins apparel and merchandise, as the free market intends.

[billsfan1959]

I'll go through this in pieces as well.

 

(1) Actually, those who believe it should be changed have offered "different" reasons, not "contradicting" reasons. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Wrong. Some say if just one person is offended it should be changed. Others say if it's a majority of the "offended party." How is that not contradictory?

 

(2) You have no burden in defending the name or Snyder's right to use it? You are not on trial for your life where the burden falls on the government. You are not Daniel Snyder or affiliated with his team. You are in a debate on an internet forum and one in which you entered voluntarily. To say you have no burden in defending your position sort of defeats the whole point of a debate - and is intellectually lazy.

 

You missed my point. I have no burden to define offense and how to use it. I obviously have a burden to defend my point, and I have been. But if you want to say, "we should come up with a decided upon definition," its you who better come up with a definition. Or at least attempt to.

 

(1) Free speech is not an absolute right, and the name of a business that uses a term that can, at the very least, reasonably be inferred as offensive is certainly not above condemnation from others.

 

I was of the teaching that besides "imminent danger," freedom of speech is a right. I'm not sure how you're using absolute right in this case. I never said he is above condemnation, only that I am personally against it.

 

(2) Because Snyder doesn't think it's wrong, that should be the end of it? That is not even logic, just obstinance.

 

It's my belief. Feel free to condemn me too.

 

Well, at least you have admitted that you, perhaps, might not think the name is morally ok. Good start.

 

It's no start, because I have never been "ok" with the name on any moral ground.

 

(1) The government regulates what we can do in our private lives every single day.

 

This is sometimes a bad thing, haven't you noticed that?

 

Besides, this is not an issue of Snyder personally using the term in his private life. This is an issue of an organization that is in the public domain using the term.

 

Private business though.

 

(2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

 

It's really not. You are so sure of your own morality, but so were many committers of genocide. If anything, it should make you reevaluate your own moral convictions.

 

1. They are not contradictory statements, they just vary in degrees. They carry the same message: If the name is offensive, maybe it should be changed.

2. I didn't say "we should come up with a decided upon definition." DC Tom said it and you echoed it. My stance, as I wrote in a previous post, is that there cannot be a concrete definition for offensiveness. I merely point out that it is ridiculous to say people can not oppose it on grounds that it is offensive if there is no concrete term for offensiveness

3. I used "absolute right" in that you seem to have this idea that because something is protected under free speech, then that is the end of it. It should never be subject to the forces of society to change it.

4. You stated that it is your belief that if Snyder thinks it is ok, then that should be the end of it. I do not think it is a logical sort of belief at all; however, I am not going to condemn you for it.

5. You are well with in your right to defend something that you feel is morally wrong. There are times I might do the same - this just doesn't happen to be one of them.

6. Sometimes it is a bad thing when government regulates what we can do in our private lives. Sometimes it is a good thing. Sometimes it is a necessary thing

7. Are you really suggesting that I should reconsider my belief that a term that refers to an entire population by skin color is offensive - because some leaders in history were under the delusional belief that entire populations should be exterminated? I think I will stick to my original point on this one. This is so bizarre in relation to this debate that I really don't even know how to address it.

Edited June 20, 2014 by billsfan1959

[Deranged Rhino]

Loyalty to the Constitution?

Where in the constitution is public protest forbidden?

[Deranged Rhino]

... I'm arguing to demonstrate the capricious ambiguity of this issue. Not one person has identified "offensive" here in a way that is all useful.

 

There is no ambiguity. The trick being played here is by the parties so outraged by the idea of messing with tradition (it's not about racism at all, not really) they've muddied the waters so much because they really don't have a logical argument to make. Only emotional ones.

 

No one is forcing Snyder to change anything. No one is trying to restrict Snyder's freedoms or the freedoms of his team's fans. That's all colored bubbles and have no bearing on this issue. The fear of government intervention is very real and very much in the collective ether which is why it's easy to bring those arguments and fears into this issue because on the surface this issue seems to be about racism and political correctness.

 

But it's not. It's about the name of a professional sports team. Nothing more. It's Snyder's and the NFL's decision, and theirs alone, as to whether or not it should be changed -- the public debate, such as the one occurring here and in other threads can only pressure Snyder or embolden him. That's it. The question shouldn't be 'should Snyder change the name', it should be 'if you owned the Redskins would you change the name'.

 

The people on here defending their defense of Snyder aren't wrong, they're just missing the point. They think its an attack on them and their tradition and thus are easily worked into a frenzy by anything that smells like a challenge to their world views. That much is clear. But if they'd take the time to actually think about the issue and ask themselves the right question as stated above, I would think this entire thread would be more thoughtful, considerate and well reasoned.

 

Not one person has identified "offensive" here in a way that is all useful. You're the only one that gave any soart of an objective measure...and it still sucked.

I don't remember if it was this thread or one of the others but there has been a definition that's very useful. If you're a Native American you get to decide. It's really that simple in terms of usage. In terms of whether or not something being deemed "offensive" is outrageous enough to warrant governmental intervention (which isn't happening at all in this case despite what some are claiming), well that's a different issue and then I'd agree with you that an objective metric for determining the offensive threshold would be difficult, if not impossible, to find.

 

But, as stated above, the offensiveness of the word is only relevant to this issue in each poster's individual position -- not Snyder's or the NFL.

[Malazan]

What were the prior 3-4 threads with the same people responding about? Should I pull some quotes from those?

 

Please don't try to tell me that this is about trademarks.

 

It is about trademarks...the whole thing is about the trademark being revoked. I don't want it to end up that you can't trademark 'Dan & Dan's Gay Extravaganza' because it is offensive to people. I don't want people saying you can't 'Muhammad's Islam Grill' because people find it offensive. I think you need to think further about the possible exploitation of this action.

[Rocky Landing]

It is about trademarks...the whole thing is about the trademark being revoked. I don't want it to end up that you can't trademark 'Dan & Dan's Gay Extravaganza' because it is offensive to people. I don't want people saying you can't 'Muhammad's Islam Grill' because people find it offensive. I think you need to think further about the possible exploitation of this action.

You're making a spurious assumption that this is setting some sort of precedent. It isn't. Trademarks are denied all the time. For example, a publisher tried to trademark "Hebe Magazine," and was denied on the grounds it was disparaging towards Jews-- even though it was championing Jewish issues. Likewise, "Dykes on Bikes" was denied a trademark, because it was disparaging towards lesbians. They appealed, arguing that they had successfully co-opted the word, and turned it into a source of pride. They won their appeal.

 

This is simply the trademark process at work.

 

BTW- Muhammad's Islam Grill, assuming they served pork, would likely be denied a trademark.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[DC Tom]

But, as stated above, the offensiveness of the word is only relevant to this issue in each poster's individual position -- not Snyder's or the NFL

 

Untrue, since people are making their individual positions relevant by the pressure they're exerting on Snyder and the NFL, on behalf of a third party they think should be offended.

 

I don't remember if it was this thread or one of the others but there has been a definition that's very useful. If you're a Native American you get to decide. It's really that simple in terms of usage. In terms of whether or not something being deemed "offensive" is outrageous enough to warrant governmental intervention (which isn't happening at all in this case despite what some are claiming), well that's a different issue and then I'd agree with you that an objective metric for determining the offensive threshold would be difficult, if not impossible, to find.

 

The last is exactly what I'm arguing. If you're going to regulate or legislate it as "offensive," you'd better have some method for determining "offense" that is reasonably fair and equitable. The first is what I suggested - I couldn't care less what Tim Graham thinks on behalf of Native Americans everywhere. I want to know what the Native American community (not just the community leadership) thinks.

 

Otherwise, it comes down to nothing more than "I think this should be restricted because I find it icky..." which is why I brought up gay marriage earlier, because the same damn "icky" logic applies to that issue. Yes, I know they're not qualitatively the same issue (though closer than you believe, I think. Manzanar isn't Chelmno, but discrimination is discrimination), but the same "I think, therefore you should..." logic is still at play. So if you're going to set the precedent that THAT is a valid means of governance, be prepared to deal with the blow-back.

 

Likewise, "Dykes on Bikes" was denied a trademark, because it was disparaging towards lesbians. They appealed, arguing that they had successfully co-opted the word, and turned it into a source of pride. They won their appeal.

 

If I were the Redskins, I'd try the same appeal: given that Native Americans are no longer referred to as Redskins, the franchise has successfully co-opted the word as a source of pride embodying the warrior ethos of the Native Americans.

 

It's not a strong argument, but it is a valid one, as I'm sure the Washington Redskins aren't named "Redskins" specifically to insult and disparage Native Americans, and the word is NOT used to describe Native Americans any more ("Indian" is rarely used nowadays, unless you're working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.) Not an appeal they'd win, either.

[Rocky Landing]

I was listening to the radio on my drive in to work this morning and they were debating this subject. A lot of the same points that I have been reading on here were being made by the two respective pundits. And, I will say this: the argument for not changing the name sounds slightly better when spoken with an English accent.

 

You're welcome.

[Captain Caveman]

So if you're going to set the precedent that THAT is a valid means of governance, be prepared to deal with the blow-back.

 

That has been ingrained in governance of this country since its founding, because we're human beings. Change in interpretation of existing laws and adoption (and sometime revocation) of new laws based on popular opinion are one of the few constants in this country's history.

 

I think understand your point, but there are many in this thread (not necessarily you) who seem to be longing from some ideal that never existed.

 

Which is not to say that it's a perfect system. There are flaws. It's sometime messy (prohibition) and sometimes outright wrong (Japanese Internment camps) but over time, it seems to be getting us to a place where a greater number of people have more meaningful freedom and opportunities.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Captain Caveman

[Rocky Landing]

 

If I were the Redskins, I'd try the same appeal: given that Native Americans are no longer referred to as Redskins, the franchise has successfully co-opted the word as a source of pride embodying the warrior ethos of the Native Americans.

 

It's not a strong argument, but it is a valid one, as I'm sure the Washington Redskins aren't named "Redskins" specifically to insult and disparage Native Americans, and the word is NOT used to describe Native Americans any more ("Indian" is rarely used nowadays, unless you're working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.) Not an appeal they'd win, either.

I don't believe that is a valid argument since intent is not relevant. Just as Hebe Magazine, and Dykes on Bikes were not meant to disparage, the trademarks were denied because they were considered disparaging words, regardless of intent. Dykes on Bikes successfully argued that the generally accepted connotation of the word had changed. The Redskins lost their trademark because the plaintiff had successfully argued that the term "redskin" was derogatory at the time of its registration in 1967. Intent was not relevant to the case, even though it may be relevant to this debate.

[FireChan]

I don't believe that is a valid argument since intent is not relevant. Just as Hebe Magazine, and Dykes on Bikes were not meant to disparage, the trademarks were denied because they were considered disparaging words, regardless of intent. Dykes on Bikes successfully argued that the generally accepted connotation of the word had changed. The Redskins lost their trademark because the plaintiff had successfully argued that the term "redskin" was derogatory at the time of its registration in 1967. Intent was not relevant to the case, even though it may be relevant to this debate.

 

Do you really think the general connotation of Redskin, isn't the football team?

[26CornerBlitz]

Do you really think the general connotation of Redskin, isn't the football team?

The Logo says no.

[Rocky Landing]

Do you really think the general connotation of Redskin, isn't the football team?

Obviously, I think that "redskin" is a derogatory word for Native American.