Redskins facing severe pressure to change name.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

Like Washington Sequoias. Sounds Indian-enough, maybe they could keep the logo.

 

Redwoods seems like the obvious choice there, no? But then they'd have to move to the other side of the country.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

We can only hope that nothing is unearthed about Buffalo Bill Cody, otherwise our name is in Jeopardy too.

[Greg S]

5 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I can’t see changing the Redskins name and not changing the Cowboys who killed them. So many other teams will need to change their name if the Redskins are forced to. That’s why I posted every NFL team should be named after a tree. 

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

We can only hope that nothing is unearthed about Buffalo Bill Cody, otherwise our name is in Jeopardy too.

 

He was merely quoting a popular rap song in those tweets!

[Rico]

Just now, Greg S said:

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

Woke heads will be busted open if they try.

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

Why would they do that?

[eball]

7 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

 

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Why would they do that?

 

Isn't about time all of those who suffered at the hands of the Yankers are vindicated?

[Greg S]

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Why would they do that?

 

They probably won't but during the civil war times southerners referred to the north as Yankees. Who knows what offends people these days. I could see Indians and Chiefs on the list as well.

[SirAndrew]

34 minutes ago, nucci said:

You're correct but this is a football message board. There are other sections to discuss the social issues you bring up.

Yes indeed,  I just can’t believe anyone cares that much about a team name. I don’t care what they do, and that was my opinion on this topic. I was curious what everyone thought, and discovered there’s more passion than I could ever put into something over the name of a football team. It’s all good, I shared my opinion, now I’ll sit back and watch both sides bicker. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by SirAndrew

[BarleyNY]

14 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

They should just change it.  Redskins is pretty blatant anyway.  It doesnt bother me, but I get it.  Just sick of the yearly debate.  Get it done with so I can get used to the other name.

 

 

Im a Cleveland Indians fan.  It was the same way with the "Chief Wahoo" thing.  I told people it was a matter of time and the team better just rip the band-aid off and re-brand now... not only the Chief, but the "Indian" name.  Do it right instead of reactionary.  I just want them to change the team name because they lack an identity without Wahoo anyways, and the debate and watching everyone dig in is tiresome.

I grew up and spent most of my life in Cleveland.  Chief Wahoo was retired a couple years ago.  Even when they built The Jake/Progressive Field they didn’t put it on anything remotely permanent.  So the writing has been on the wall for a long time.  I was really surprised that they used the Wahoo caps in the World Series against the Cubs.

 

Personally I don’t care much about names and mascots.  Cleveland Spiders is fine with me.  Buffalo Bisons would be fine.  Cleveland Bulldogs would be fine.  If a name bothers a lot of people or has an offensive history/meaning, then change it.   To me it is such a a small gesture showing respect toward others.  If you don’t give respect, then you don’t deserve it back.
 

Which leads me to a question that was already dodged by one poster on here.  If there are two (or more) words for someone or something and one is offensive to a lot of people, then why insist on using the offensive one?  I’ve yet to get any answer, much less a good one. 

12 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

They probably won't but during the civil war times southerners referred to the north as Yankees. Who knows what offends people these days. I could see Indians and Chiefs on the list as well.

Why wouldn’t Americans proudly wear a name that was only used derogatorily by traitors?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

I always bring facts to the debate and I can always support them.

 

Well, that's not what I've seen.  I believe I could go back and find discussions with you where I repeatedly asked you to source your assertions and got *crickets* and repeated reiterations without said source (sorry, eventually providing a source in PPP, which I don't read, doesn't count.  there is this thing called PM).  And I see the same dynamic here - you take one poll as gospel, people bring up another poll with different results and a pretty careful rationale, and you dismiss their poll whilst banging the drum for your own POV (banging the drum...see what I did there?  har har)

 

I have no idea how you mentally morph a disinclination to debate pseudo-intellectual white dudes who have a history of blanket dismissal of the existence and impacts of racism because, well, they don't believe it exists, and because well, they can dredge up one poll from somewhere that supports their view so everyone with a different personal experience or different research is just wrong and can be disregarded in the face of their personal disbelief, into "Just believe what the TV says, do not ask for evidence, and reject all non-confirming evidence. Anyone who doesn't accept the narrative is to be dismissed out of hand. Discussion is not required, because we feel that we are right."

 

But it seems kind of illustrative of Travis Henry's point.  Do not confuse this with some form of "winning".  You can go out into the forest and "win" a debate that way with the air.

 

 

 

 

[freddyjj]

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

48 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I think every team in the NFL should just be named after a tree and be done with it. 

 

Would make stadium song choice easier:

 

[nucci]

4 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

is it offensive to the Irish? I would think they like the name...now if you said drunken...

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

 

Stay tuned for this and other classics from "Debating with a 5 year old".

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

Because essentially none of the Irish or Irish-American community feels anything but pride or indifference regarding the name and there is no apparent racist intent in the history of the term and team lore.

[US Egg]

5 minutes ago, nucci said:

is it offensive to the Irish? I would think they like the name...now if you said drunken...

 

[Rob's House]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

Well, that's not what I've seen.  I believe I could go back and find discussions with you where I repeatedly asked you to source your assertions and got *crickets* and repeated reiterations without said source (sorry, eventually providing a source in PPP, which I don't read, doesn't count.  there is this thing called PM).  And I see the same dynamic here - you take one poll as gospel, people bring up another poll with different results and a pretty careful rationale, and you dismiss their poll whilst banging the drum for your own POV (banging the drum...see what I did there?  har har)

 

I have no idea how you mentally morph a disinclination to debate pseudo-intellectual white dudes who have a history of blanket dismissal of the existence and impacts of racism because, well, they don't believe it exists, and because well, they can dredge up one poll from somewhere that supports their view so everyone with a different personal experience or different research is just wrong and can be disregarded in the face of their personal disbelief, into "Just believe what the TV says, do not ask for evidence, and reject all non-confirming evidence. Anyone who doesn't accept the narrative is to be dismissed out of hand. Discussion is not required, because we feel that we are right."

 

But it seems kind of illustrative of Travis Henry's point.  Do not confuse this with some form of "winning".  You can go out into the forest and "win" a debate that way with the air.

 

 

 

 

 

I tagged you in the post and posted another study that had similar findings in the original thread. I also posted links in this one, but no matter how much evidence I provide it seems you'll always dismiss it without explanation.

 

Conspicuously absent from any of your arguments is any supporting evidence. You simply state the narrative and resort to the same sort of "argument" you've presented above. If you have empirical evidence supporting this theory I'd like to see it but you can't because it does not exist. The police brutality angle has sputtered out and morphed into a broad "systemic racism" argument because the former, as it has been characterized, is fairly easily debunked, whereas the latter can never be disproven, making its findings inherently unscientific.

 

If America was a hot bed of racism one would think there would be countless examples and empirical evidence to support the theory, yet we never get that. We get scarce helpings of anecdotal evidence, most of which is unverifiable or ambiguous, along with patronizing rhetoric that attempts to shame skeptics who refuse to believe a narrative that is at odds with all the evidence we have seen.

 

It's hard to grasp the theory of overwhelming "systemic racism" in a country where the greatest threat to ones livelihood is being perceived as having any negative perceptions regarding any minority group. It is also hard to fathom when the disparities that we are told are a product of this "systemic racism" do not seem to affect other minorities or black people who immigrate here from other countries.

 

It is hard to buy into the theory when you've seen countless accusations of racism, and the majority of those you can confirm one way or the other prove either baseless or demonstrably false. It's even harder when the same people that tell you this is an epidemic lie to you about everything else under the sun.

 

It's hard to accept that black people live under the constant strain of racism when so many black people claim to rarely if ever experience this kind of racism.

 

It's even harder to accept a theory you're not allowed to question. We're told white people can't have an opinion, unless of course they share the view that we're told is the that of black folks. Of course, if I mention a black man with an opposing view I am expressing white fragility, which is racist, because he doesn't speak for all black people - only the one's you agree with do.

 

So in essence, only those expressing the "systemic racist" theory of America are allowed to opine. All other voices need to silence themselves or be silenced.

 

[njbuff]

14 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I tagged you in the post and posted another study that had similar findings in the original thread. I also posted links in this one, but no matter how much evidence I provide it seems you'll always dismiss it without explanation.

 

Conspicuously absent from any of your arguments is any supporting evidence. You simply state the narrative and resort to the same sort of "argument" you've presented above. If you have empirical evidence supporting this theory I'd like to see it but you can't because it does not exist. The police brutality angle has sputtered out and morphed into a broad "systemic racism" argument because the former, as it has been characterized, is fairly easily debunked, whereas the latter can never be disproven, making its findings inherently unscientific.

 

If America was a hot bed of racism one would think there would be countless examples and empirical evidence to support the theory, yet we never get that. We get scarce helpings of anecdotal evidence, most of which is unverifiable or ambiguous, along with patronizing rhetoric that attempts to shame skeptics who refuse to believe a narrative that is at odds with all the evidence we have seen.

 

It's hard to grasp the theory of overwhelming "systemic racism" in a country where the greatest threat to ones livelihood is being perceived as having any negative perceptions regarding any minority group. It is also hard to fathom when the disparities that we are told are a product of this "systemic racism" do not seem to affect other minorities or black people who immigrate here from other countries.

 

It is hard to buy into the theory when you've seen countless accusations of racism, and the majority of those you can confirm one way or the other prove either baseless or demonstrably false. It's even harder when the same people that tell you this is an epidemic lie to you about everything else under the sun.

 

It's hard to accept that black people live under the constant strain of racism when so many black people claim to rarely if ever experience this kind of racism.

 

It's even harder to accept a theory you're not allowed to question. We're told white people can't have an opinion, unless of course they share the view that we're told is the that of black folks. Of course, if I mention a black man with an opposing view I am expressing white fragility, which is racist, because he doesn't speak for all black people - only the one's you agree with do.

 

So in essence, only those expressing the "systemic racist" theory of America are allowed to opine. All other voices need to silence themselves or be silenced.

 

 

The stats are produced by the FBI for everyone to plainly see, but let's ignore that facts and let's tell everyone that America truly is a racist hateful country.

 

If you can't see the truth, then there is no discussion about this totally false narrative that minorities are SEVERELY oppressed every second, every minute and every day in this country.

 

Have you oppressed minorities yourself? I know I certainly have not.

[HappyDays]

3 hours ago, Rob's House said:

This is an updated version that shows (among other things) that even as recently as 2019 only 52% of black people thought that race had hindered their ability to get ahead. 46% said it either had no effect or (17%) actually helped them.

 

This is a bizarre poll to use to make your point. Over half of black people think their race has specifically hindered them and that is the most positive result you can pull from that link. 84% of black people think racial discrimination is a major obstacle and 87% think black people are treated worse by the criminal justice system. Whatever point you're trying to make that isn't the poll to use.

[Rob's House]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is a bizarre poll to use to make your point. Over half of black people think their race has specifically hindered them and that is the most positive result you can pull from that link. 84% of black people think racial discrimination is a major obstacle and 87% think black people are treated worse by the criminal justice system. Whatever point you're trying to make that isn't the poll to use.

 

It shows only 52% believe they have personally been hindered in their ability to get ahead, even a little bit, by racism. The rest shows the gap between reality and perception. It also shows that black folks have a variety of opinions and are not a monolithic group.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is a bizarre poll to use to make your point. Over half of black people think their race has specifically hindered them and that is the most positive result you can pull from that link. 84% of black people think racial discrimination is a major obstacle and 87% think black people are treated worse by the criminal justice system. Whatever point you're trying to make that isn't the poll to use.

 

Indeed.  From the link @Rob's House, 84% think racial discrimination hurts their ability to get ahead, 76% say they have less access to high-paying jobs, 72% say less access to good schools.  Huh.

[HappyDays]

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

It shows only 52% believe they have personally been hindered in their ability to get ahead, even a little bit, by racism.

 

"Only" half of black feel their race has literally hurt their ability to get ahead. You're way underselling the gravity of that statistic. You're also ignoring the lost positive - 45% of white people think their race has specifically helped them get ahead. Whereas even to your point 29% of black people think it has neither helped nor hurt them. Even taking that question at face value that is still a net negative for black people. I would also argue the more general question about racial discrimination is more telling. If someone asked me if American public schools in general put people at a disadvantage compared to private schools I would say yes. If someone asked me if my public school put me at a disadvantage I'm too prideful to answer yes to that question. And I've found decent enough success in life that I can say no to that question. That doesn't mean my initial answer is wrong or that private school wouldn't have still put me at an even greater advantage, and I'm smart enough to know that my subjective interpretation of my experience isn't necessarily true. Kind of a clunky example but you see what I mean?

[Warcodered]

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Indeed.  From the link @Rob's House, 84% think racial discrimination hurts their ability to get ahead, 76% say they have less access to high-paying jobs, 72% say less access to good schools.  Huh.

 

[Rob's House]

21 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

"Only" half of black feel their race has literally hurt their ability to get ahead. You're way underselling the gravity of that statistic. You're also ignoring the lost positive - 45% of white people think their race has specifically helped them get ahead. Whereas even to your point 29% of black people think it has neither helped nor hurt them. Even taking that question at face value that is still a net negative for black people. I would also argue the more general question about racial discrimination is more telling. If someone asked me if American public schools in general put people at a disadvantage compared to private schools I would say yes. If someone asked me if my public school put me at a disadvantage I'm too prideful to answer yes to that question. And I've found decent enough success in life that I can say no to that question. That doesn't mean my initial answer is wrong or that private school wouldn't have still put me at an even greater advantage, and I'm smart enough to know that my subjective interpretation of my experience isn't necessarily true. Kind of a clunky example but you see what I mean?

 

The main point of that example goes back to a previous conversation that HBF claimed I hadn't sourced. The point being refuted is that we must shut up and listen to the black voice which claims overt oppression. The point I was making is that there isn't a single black opinion, but rather a wide variety of black opinions, many of which do not support the media narrative. 

 

The other noteworthy portion is that nearly half of black people in 2019 did not believe that race was a hindrance to them getting ahead. To listen to the news and some conversations here you'd think it was unanimous.

32 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Indeed.  From the link @Rob's House, 84% think racial discrimination hurts their ability to get ahead, 76% say they have less access to high-paying jobs, 72% say less access to good schools.  Huh.

 

Look at the difference between their perception and their real life experience.

[Rocky Landing]

Honestly, the back and forth on this topic is astonishing. Especially cringeworthy are the reliance on some clearly bogus polls, and blatantly irrelevant straw man arguments about other “offensive” team names.

 

The National Congress of American Indians, founded in 1944, and headquartered in Washington DC, is the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization there is. They represent 573 member tribes. They are the same organization that produced the commercial advocating for the Redskins name change at the Super Bowl several years ago. Below is a link to their resolution regarding the Redskins name. It is the same position they have held for decades.

 

http://www.ncai.org/resources/resolutions/opposing-the-washington-nfl-team-s-return-to-the-district-of-columbia-until-the-franchise-changes-its-offensive-name

 

If anyone truly believes they have a more cogent, or authoritative argument than the National Congress of American Indians, they are a fool.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

The three minority owners of the Washington Redskins are seeking to sell their shares in the team because they are "not happy being a partner" with owner Daniel Snyder, The Washington Post has reported, citing sources familiar with the deliberations.
 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29415651/redskins-trio-minority-owners-launching-search-sell-stakes
 

sorry if duplicated 

 

 

[Warcodered]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

The main point of that example goes back to a previous conversation that HBF claimed I hadn't sourced. The point being refuted is that we must shut up and listen to the black voice which claims overt oppression. The point I was making is that there isn't a single black opinion, but rather a wide variety of black opinions, many of which do not support the media narrative. 

 

The other noteworthy portion is that nearly half of black people in 2019 did not believe that race was a hindrance to them getting ahead. To listen to the news and some conversations here you'd think it was unanimous.

 

Look at the difference between their perception and their real life experience.

I mean the two questions aren't really that well connected the one that got around 50% asks weather being black has hurt their ability to get ahead and that's honestly a tougher question to answer yes to than simply have you been discriminated against. But let's not forget that half said it did and that is incredibly high.

[eball]

5 hours ago, Rob's House said:

Back in the 50s and 60s

 

That's your standard of reasonableness?  Really?

 

Oy vey.

[ExiledInIllinois]

3 hours ago, nucci said:

is it offensive to the Irish? I would think they like the name...now if you said drunken...

How about the Drunken Micks. Would  they be offended by that?

[K-9]

Whether or not racism exists is not within the sole purview of those to which it’s directed to determine. 

[Rob's House]

22 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I mean the two questions aren't really that well connected the one that got around 50% asks weather being black has hurt their ability to get ahead and that's honestly a tougher question to answer yes to than simply have you been discriminated against. But let's not forget that half said it did and that is incredibly high.

 

It is high. Although it's notable that the the 52% includes any perceived discrimination, even if slight.

 

It's also noteworthy that this is perception. How many of these people were actually discriminated against, and how many attributed racism to a situation where it did not apply? I have no idea. I have firsthand knowledge of several instances of people claiming racism where none exists. It's anecdotal, so I can't quantify it, but it is a relevant consideration.

 

It's also worth noting that the door swings both ways. I know of a handful of examples where I know for a fact that a person was discriminated against for being white wrt employment and contracts. That too is anecdotal, but it's a factor to consider. It's well established that blacks get favorable treatment wrt college admissions.

 

This doesn't necessarily mean that blacks don't have it worse overall - I can't really say one way or the other - but it does cast a lot of doubt on the systemic oppression narrative.

 

If we consider only the facts that support our beliefs and discount all that are inconsistent with them, we're not pursuing truth, we're rationalizing.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rob's House

[Warcodered]

12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

If we consider only the facts that support our beliefs and discount all that are inconsistent with them, we're not pursuing truth, we're rationalizing.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Warcodered

[BuffaloRebound]

There’s about 200 mediocre white dudes like myself who make 6 figures based mostly on the fact that we look like our bosses or customers for every black person given preferential treatment by college admissions.  

[aceman_16]

29 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

If we consider only the facts that support our beliefs and discount all that are inconsistent with them, we're not pursuing truth, we're rationalizing.

I dont want to make this personal but lolololololloolloollolll.....umm go back and read your posts , especially how you staked your major argument on the Washington Post's unscientific poll.

[Rob's House]

30 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

The difference is I've considered everything you've offered, which isn't much, and come to a measured conclusion that is consistent with all the facts.

 

Rather than reply with facts and counterpoints you have conclusions and memes. You're not open to the possibility that you could be wrong about any of this.

30 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

The difference is I've considered everything you've offered, which isn't much, and come to a measured conclusion that is consistent with all the facts.

 

Rather than reply with facts and counterpoints you have conclusions and memes. You're not open to the possibility that you could be wrong about any of this.

[Rob's House]

12 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:

I dont want to make this personal but lolololololloolloollolll.....umm go back and read your posts , especially how you staked your major argument on the Washington Post's unscientific poll.

 

Still haven't heard you offer anything of substance to refute that theory. 

 

I already said I'd be open to hearing other evidence. You're staking your entire argument on a study for which I already pointed out many fatal flaws with specificity.

 

It's possible you could be right, but you haven't made a very strong case.

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

The point I was making is that there isn't a single black opinion, but rather a wide variety of black opinions, many of which do not support the media narrative. 

 

No one has argued against this. But over 80% of black people do feel that there is discrimination against black people and that the justice system treats them differently. There's a difference between being hindered and being discriminated against. You're conflating the two but they're not exactly the same. A black man who feels like his rights are violated during a traffic stop isn't hindered at succeeding in life.

 

Anyways I'm just going off of the poll you provided. The point you're trying to make isn't evidenced in that poll.

[Rob's House]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No one has argued against this. But over 80% of black people do feel that there is discrimination against black people and that the justice system treats them differently. There's a difference between being hindered and being discriminated against. You're conflating the two but they're not exactly the same. A black man who feels like his rights are violated during a traffic stop isn't hindered at succeeding in life.

 

Anyways I'm just going off of the poll you provided. The point you're trying to make isn't evidenced in that poll.

 

I appreciate the clarification.

[aceman_16]

19 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Still haven't heard you offer anything of substance to refute that theory. 

 

I already said I'd be open to hearing other evidence. You're staking your entire argument on a study for which I already pointed out many fatal flaws with specificity.

 

It's possible you could be right, but you haven't made a very strong case.

You obviously don't understand research.  EVERY good research document is ethically bound to tell the reader the limitations and where someone can pick up/improve upon it. It is the core of proper and well-done research. Besides....it is not my job to convince you of something you are unwilling to see.

 

As I said to someone yesterday...arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon.  The bird just craps on the board and struts around thinking it is winning. Keep pooping on arguments and feel like your winning. You viewpoints are coming across well /sarcasm.