Tom Bauerle (Monday Afternoon) says the Bills may be next for a name change

[BuffaloBob]

On 7/13/2020 at 4:17 PM, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

No, I'm saying there's no indication anywhere of what "Bills" means -- except old game programs from the '60s

Did he really think that? Might as well be the Buffalo Bobs

I could go for this suggestion.  ?

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Buffalo Pesolas.  To honour WBEN's other bloviating on air personality as he retires.

[GreggTX]

I never really liked the name "Bills" much anyways. "Bisons" just makes a lot more sense. That was the original team name.

[Mr. WEO]

22 hours ago, Playoffs? said:

This is all so stupid. 
 

- Patriots probably killed many more native Americans than Bill Cody.  

- Jets have dropped bombs/fired guns on people in war. 

- Saints are associated with the Catholic Church (which is associated with child molestation)
- Buccaneers raped and pillaged innocent people. 
 

These are quick and off the top of my head.. people can be offended by almost anything. 
 

That said, I do understand the offensive nature of the word ‘redskin’ and while it’d be weird, agree with the considerations to change the name. 
 

 

 

 

In the pantheon of "this is a slippery slope!" arguments.....this might be the absolute worst and least convincing.

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

In the pantheon of "this is a slippery slope!" arguments.....this might be the absolute worst and least convincing.

 

Including the Bills, they're all dumb reasons to change the names.  Which was the point.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Including the Bills, they're all dumb reasons to change the names.  Which was the point.

 

No one is offended by the words: jets, saints, buccaneers.

 

His argument was absurd.   

[Putin]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No one is offended by the words: jets, saints, buccaneers.

 

His argument was absurd.   

And you know this because ? 

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Putin said:

And you know this because ? 

 

The obviousness of it.  I mean you can make up any bogus statements to make a point.  They are still false.

 

 

Lol..."jets" as offensive language.   Is this poster (and are you) offended by the word "car"?--far more people have been killed by them than by "jets".   No, you are not.  No one is, and the mere suggestion is ridiculous.

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

No one is offended by the words: jets, saints, buccaneers.

 

His argument was absurd.   

 

And who is offended by "Buffalo Bills"?  Probably the same number of people as the names you mentioned.

[Fr. Jerk]

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

And who is offended by "Buffalo Bills"?  Probably the same number of people as the names you mentioned.

 

Many here have correctly pointed out that this radio guy is speaking nonsense.  Yet "Playoffs" seems not to have caught on, so he doubled down with even more ridiculous examples of nonsense that also isn't happening.  

 

"Where does it end?!?"  Where, indeed...

[Putin]

37 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The obviousness of it.  I mean you can make up any bogus statements to make a point.  They are still false.

 

 

Lol..."jets" as offensive language.   Is this poster (and are you) offended by the word "car"?--far more people have been killed by them than by "jets".   No, you are not.  No one is, and the mere suggestion is ridiculous.

I see you left the Saints out , you think maybe our Muslim or Jewish community could be offended ?

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, Putin said:

I see you left the Saints out , you think maybe our Muslim or Jewish community could be offended ?

 

No.  No one could be offended by the word "saints", anymore than they could be by the words "mayor" or "governor", despite many mayors and governors committing crimes while in office.

 

Quit while your not too far behind...

[Putin]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No.  No one could be offended by the word "saints", anymore than they could be by the words "mayor" or "governor", despite many mayors and governors committing crimes while in office.

 

Quit while your not too far behind...

I’m offended by your suggestion ? that I’m behind 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Many here have correctly pointed out that this radio guy is speaking nonsense.  Yet "Playoffs" seems not to have caught on, so he doubled down with even more ridiculous examples of nonsense that also isn't happening.  

 

"Where does it end?!?"  Where, indeed...

 

That's the million dollar question.  The Redskins' name change now opens the floodgates for other potential name changes, just because 10% of Native Americans were offended by it.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

That's the million dollar question.  The Redskins' name change now opens the floodgates for other potential name changes, just because 10% of Native Americans were offended by it.

 

So because of the plainly offensive name of the Washington team is going to finally be changed, it logically follows that the "floodgates" include words like "jets", saints" and "buccaneers" will be pressured to go as well?

 

Like I said, as a "slippery slope" argument, this is a mess.  It's not even good sarcasm.

 

And why did you feel the compulsion to include the 10% bit (it's 67% in a much larger recent study)?  To tell us that you believe that a derogatory comment is only so if a majority of those it marginalizes/insults says so in a poll?  Or do you think that is the only reason it is/should be changing?  

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

So because of the plainly offensive name of the Washington team is going to finally be changed, it logically follows that the "floodgates" include words like "jets", saints" and "buccaneers" will be pressured to go as well?

 

Like I said, as a "slippery slope" argument, this is a mess.  It's not even good sarcasm.

 

And why did you feel the compulsion to include the 10% bit (it's 67% in a much larger recent study)?  To tell us that you believe that a derogatory comment is only so if a majority of those it marginalizes/insults says so in a poll?  Or do you think that is the only reason it is/should be changing?  

 

There was a 2016 Washington Post poll that found that 9 out of 10 Native Americans didn't find the name "Washington Redskins" offensive, which was consistent with a poll from 2004.  Going by that, what percentage of outrage do we use to justify changing things? 

 

However if the number is truly 67%, then yes, changing it is a good idea.  But at least, that's a good majority.

 

The other names mentioned are about as "logical" to be changed as the Bills name is.  Why you didn't bristle at that, and instead offered a (not even good sarcasm) name change is what's curious.

 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Sweet !!

 

I knew the change to Buffalo Barbarians was next !!!

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

There was a 2016 Washington Post poll that found that 9 out of 10 Native Americans didn't find the name "Washington Redskins" offensive, which was consistent with a poll from 2004.  Going by that, what percentage of outrage do we use to justify changing things? 

 

However if the number is truly 67%, then yes, changing it is a good idea.  But at least, that's a good majority.

 

The other names mentioned are about as "logical" to be changed as the Bills name is.  Why you didn't bristle at that, and instead offered a (not even good sarcasm) name change is what's curious.

 

 

Again, yes the Bills name change is silly. But the topic of this thread is that some radio goofball said the Bills are next.  Some here took that as a serious threat,then went off on a really dumb argument about "what's next".

 

This isn't hard.

 

And there is no "majority" needed to realize a blatantly racist team name is in fact racist.  Believing so is....curious.

[Doc]

19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Again, yes the Bills name change is silly. But the topic of this thread is that some radio goofball said the Bills are next.  Some here took that as a serious threat,then went off on a really dumb argument about "what's next".

 

This isn't hard.

 

And there is no "majority" needed to realize a blatantly racist team name is in fact racist.  Believing so is....curious.

 

No, what's not hard is that the Bills changing their name was the dumb "what's next."  Your post on page 11 should have been your first post in this thread.

 

And if a term is not deemed racist to the vast majority of the people to whom it's allegedly derogatory, is it really racist?

[Mr. WEO]

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No, what's not hard is that the Bills changing their name was the dumb "what's next."  Your post on page 11 should have been your first post in this thread.

 

And if a term is not deemed racist to the vast majority of the people to whom it's allegedly derogatory, is it really racist?

 

 

Well, since no one but a radio guy is claiming this is possible, everything else is a straw man.  You and others here are outraged by something that no one is really considering.

 

Let me ask you this:  if  a pro team decided to call themselves the "Yellow Menace" or the "Towelheads" and then produced a poll where less than 50% of Asian or Sikh found  it offensive, would it be OK because we could conclude, based on a few hundred polled that, by definition, it's "not racist"?

Edited July 19, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[Buffalo Barbarian]

On 7/13/2020 at 3:45 PM, Buffalo716 said:

I don't believe Buffalo Bill Cody murdered many native Americans

 

he was a civil war soldier, and created Buffalo Bill's wild West show which had natives in prominent roles

 

except war is not murder, other wise every soldier would be guilty of murder.

 

 

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

except war is not murder, other wise every soldier would be guilty of murder.

 

 

Exactly. He probably murdered none

[Doc]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

Well, since no o e but a radio guy is claiming this is possible, everything else is a straw man.  You and others here are outraged by something that no one is really considering.

 

Let me ask you this:  if  a pro team decided to call themselves the "Yellow Menace" or the "Towelheads" and then produced a poll where less than 50% of Asian or Sikh found it not offensive, would it be OK because we could conclude, based on a few hundred polled that, by definition, it's "not racist"?

 

There was no outrage from me outside of finding out Bauerle didn't even do his homework when it was made known that Bill Cody was actually a friend to Native Americans.  Again I think that changing any of those names is as dumb as changing the Bills' name.

 

As for your hypothetical, If the vast majority don't have a problem with it, no one else should.  If you want to call into question the polling, which is apropos in this setting, that's fine and again, if most Native Americans find it offensive, it should be changed.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

There was no outrage from me outside of finding out Bauerle didn't even do his homework when it was made known that Bill Cody was actually a friend to Native Americans.  Again I think that changing any of those names is as dumb as changing the Bills' name.

 

As for your hypothetical, If the vast majority don't have a problem with it, no one else should.  If you want to call into question the polling, which is apropos in this setting, that's fine and again, if most Native Americans find it offensive, it should be changed.

 

 

So you are saying you feel no descriptor or name is inherently racist.  It has to be voted on by those it depicts in a derogatory fashion first?

 

I will say, that is a curious position.

[Doc]

32 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

So you are saying you feel no descriptor or name is inherently racist.  It has to be voted on by those it depicts in a derogatory fashion first?

 

I will say, that is a curious position.

 

Nope, not what I said.  I asked that if the vast majority of people (like in the 2016 poll, which I admit could be wrong and thus a name change is the right thing to do) don't find a term derogatory, is it really racist?  And at what level of disapproval do we need to start changing things?  And then we get into that whole slippery slope thing.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Nope, not what I said.  I asked that if the vast majority of people (like in the 2016 poll) don't find a term derogatory, is it really racist?  And at what level of disapproval do we need to start changing things?  And then we get into that whole slippery slope thing.

 

You've just said again that a term is racist only if those  it is directed against agree in the majority that it is.  That means you believe no term is inherently racist.   There is no other conclusion to be derived from what you have stated and reiterated.  You keep repeating that it has to be polled on or voted on first. That's a unique argument.  

 

You now say perhaps the issue lies in how many (or what %) of those who are offended by a derogatory must remain offended before deciding it's racist.  Like the actual argument lies in the threshold.

 

Very intersting.

 

 

[Doc]

46 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

You've just said again that a term is racist only if those  it is directed against agree in the majority that it is.  That means you believe no term is inherently racist.   There is no other conclusion to be derived from what you have stated and reiterated.  You keep repeating that it has to be polled on or voted on first. That's a unique argument.  

 

You now say perhaps the issue lies in how many (or what %) of those who are offended by a derogatory must remain offended before deciding it's racist.  Like the actual argument lies in the threshold.

 

Very intersting.

 

"Redskin" wasn't originally a pejorative.  Meanwhile "*****" at one time was a pejorative and is now a widely accepted term among the homosexual community.  Thus the concept of "inherence" is misguided as things can change over time.

 

Maybe we should poll before changing everything based on perceived slights?  But again if "Redskin" is truly offensive to Native Americans, they've finally done the right thing.

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

"Redskin" wasn't originally a pejorative.  Meanwhile "*****" at one time was a pejorative and is now a widely accepted term among the homosexual community.  Thus the concept of "inherence" is misguided as things can change over time.

 

Maybe we should poll before changing everything based on perceived slights?  But again if "Redskin" is truly offensive to Native Americans, they've finally done the right thing.

 

 

So you would agree that, in 2016 for instance, that if a white manager in a Native American casino told a foreman: "hey, can you round up the rest of you redskins so I can disburse your wampum for this pay period"--it would have been perfectly appropriate, based on that recent phone poll of 500 individuals?

Edited July 19, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[iinii]

In all, he is believed to have engaged in 16 Indian fights, including his much-publicized scalping (July 17, 1876) of the Cheyennewarrior Yellow Hair (erroneously translated as Yellow Hand) in Sioux county, Nebraska, which was hailed as a response to the massacre of Custer’s command at the Battle of the Little Bighorn earlier in the year.
 

William Cody quite the humanitarian. 

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

So you would agree that, in 2016 for instance, that if a white manager in a Native American casino told a foreman: "hey, can you round up the rest of you redskins so I can disburse your wampum for this pay period"--it would have been perfectly appropriate, based on that recent phone poll of 500 individuals?

 

If he's a manager of a Native American casino, I seriously doubt he'd a) have gotten that far if he was truly racist and b) say anything that would offend even 10% of the people he works with.  And if he did say that and someone complained, but he was a good manager, his bosses might tell the offended employee to pound sand.  There are no hard and fast rules and sometimes "appropriateness" goes to the wayside given context.  Hell Ritchie was given a pass for saying the N word because black players felt he was like a brother and it was just a word without any force behind it. 

 

I just wonder when we stop getting offended by everything little thing and start moving past it?  The more you show something hurts you the more the person trying to hurt you will do it.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

If he's a manager of a Native American casino, I seriously doubt he'd a) have gotten that far if he was truly racist and b) say anything that would offend even 10% of the people he works with.  And if he did say that and someone complained, but he was a good manager, his bosses might tell the offended employee to pound sand.  There are no hard and fast rules and sometimes "appropriateness" goes to the wayside given context.  Hell Ritchie was given a pass for saying the N word because black players felt he was like a brother and it was just a word without any force behind it. 

 

I just wonder when we stop getting offended by everything little thing and start moving past it?  The more you show something hurts you the more the person trying to hurt you will do it.

 

 

Sometimes I wonder, when you paint yourself into these corners, how hard you would twist to remain there.  Now I know.

 

LOL--yes it would depend on what "context" he said  "hey, can you round up the rest of you redskins so I can disburse your wampum for this pay period".

 

You never disappoint.

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

Sometimes I wonder, when you paint yourself into these corners, how hard you would twist to remain there.  Now I know.

 

LOL--yes it would depend on what "context" he said  "hey, can you round up the rest of you redskins so I can disburse your wampum for this pay period".

 

You never disappoint.

 

Context being a joke in this situation, WEO.  Which is why I gave you the Ritchie example.  Not every situation is the same, despite how much painting you like to do.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Context being a joke in this situation, WEO.  Which is why I gave you the Ritchie example.  Not every situation is the same, despite how much painting you like to do.

 
Did Richies teammates’ “manager” call them N-words? Coaches?  Owner?

 

is it a “little” enough thing that you would walk up to a Native American and say “hey redskin”?

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 Did Richies teammates’ “manager” call them N-words? Coaches?  Owner?

 

is it a “little” enough thing that you would walk up to a Native American and say “hey redskin”?

 

I couldn't tell you.  Ritchie however did because they considered him an honorary brother, or something of that nature.

 

And as I've gotten older, I generally try not to offend anyone, especially those I don't know.  But if someone were to go up to a Native American and call him/her a "redskin," believing that it's not offensive, that the Native American would explain that they don't appreciate the term and educate that person instead of screaming "racist" and trying to destroy his/her life. 

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I couldn't tell you.  Ritchie however did because they considered him an honorary brother, or something of that nature.

 

And as I've gotten older, I generally try not to offend anyone, especially those I don't know.  But if someone were to go up to a Native American and call him/her a "redskin," believing that it's not offensive, that the Native American would explain that they don't appreciate the term and educate that person instead of screaming "racist" and trying to destroy his/her life. 

Why  would YOU  worry about offending them?  It’s not offensive right?  At least based on one poll.  Tell them what they should not find offensive!

 

”honorary brother” lol..that’s rich.

 

 

[Doc]

35 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Why  would YOU  worry about offending them?  It’s not offensive right?  At least based on one poll.  Tell them what they should not find offensive!

 

”honorary brother” lol..that’s rich.

 

It wasn't one poll.  It was a 2nd poll that found the same results as one done 15 years earlier.  That were somehow both off by 57% just 4 years later.  But hey, it's not my job to tell people what should and should not offend them.  And in the end, the name got changed.

 

And take it up with the players.  That's what they said, not me.  They obviously accepted him with open arms despite all the things he said and did to Martin.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Doc

[formerlyofCtown]

On 7/13/2020 at 3:21 PM, boater said:

Listening to the windbag live right now. He's saying the Buffalo Bills may be up next to change their name.

 

Rationale: They are named after Buffalo Bill Cody who murdered many Native Americans.

 

I hope the Bills don't change their name.

 

(it's 930 AM, or WBEN on radio.com)

If he hadn't we probably wouldn't exist right now.  The slaughtering of the natives, slavery, abuse and pretty much slavery of Asians were all terrible things that have occured on every square inch of this planet that is inhabitable.  With out a doubt this country would not exist if those things hadn't happened.  We should be grateful to those slaves and natives for their sacrifice.  What is happening now is not honoring their sacrifice it's making it all for naught.  Out of their blood and corpse's a great nation that has defeated all kinds of evil rose up.  What people don't realize is that extremely evil people are manipulating them so that they can gain power.  If you wipe out our history then we are not a nation anymore.  You don't erase the good that men did just because of the bad.  These people think we are so bad then they should look to those we have defeated including some of those native American groups.

[formerlyofCtown]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

There was a 2016 Washington Post poll that found that 9 out of 10 Native Americans didn't find the name "Washington Redskins" offensive, which was consistent with a poll from 2004.  Going by that, what percentage of outrage do we use to justify changing things? 

 

However if the number is truly 67%, then yes, changing it is a good idea.  But at least, that's a good majority.

 

The other names mentioned are about as "logical" to be changed as the Bills name is.  Why you didn't bristle at that, and instead offered a (not even good sarcasm) name change is what's curious.

 

No where in the constitution does it say we have freedom from being offended.  It's sad people are so thin skinned.  There are groups that are actually discriminated against and oppressed today and nobody raises a finger or protest on their behalf.  All these people that are crying racism, oppression, discrimination and offence are a joke and should be ashamed of themselves.  They couldn't bare the real thing as quite a few people that do carry it take their own lives, self-destruct and are even murdered, but people don't change a thing and some even applaud it and call it justice.

[Bill from NYC]

6 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

No where in the constitution does it say we have freedom from being offended.  It's sad people are so thin skinned.  There are groups that are actually discriminated against and oppressed today and nobody raises a finger or protest on their behalf.  All these people that are crying racism, oppression, discrimination and offence are a joke and should be ashamed of themselves.  They couldn't bare the real thing as quite a few people that do carry it take their own lives, self-destruct and are even murdered, but people don't change a thing and some even applaud it and call it justice.

I'll bite.....who are these people about which you speak?