Bonez3 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Folks, I think we have now seen the first new "name change" argument, in this thread, in what seems like 10 years. Congratulations!!!!! The argument that the name of a corporation should be changed, if the intellectual members (and only those members) of a group, say so. ---------- Did I lay it on thick enough? Well, for the record, I tried to start a Canucks thread ( ) 100 or so pages ago. Nobody was buying. But that also has some derogatory use historically and generally refers to a 'race' of people. Google it and first interwebz definition: Ca·nuck kəˈnək/ informal noun noun: Canuck; plural noun: Canucks 1. a Canadian (sometimes derogatory in US use). "as a true Canuck, Hayden loves pizza" dated a French Canadian. Further investigation suggests some origin to Canadian NA tribes. Not that far a parallel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSSkinz Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 No. They were sports franchises that rebranded. Exxon was a rebranding, not a merger. Verizon was a rebranding, not a merger. Verizon was a merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE in 2000 and those 3 teams you posted, hows that re-branding going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 <p> Well, for the record, I tried to start a Canucks thread ( ) 100 or so pages ago. Nobody was buying. But that also has some derogatory use historically and generally refers to a 'race' of people. Google it and first interwebz definition: Ca·nuck kəˈnək/ informal noun noun: Canuck; plural noun: Canucks 1. a Canadian (sometimes derogatory in US use). "as a true Canuck, Hayden loves pizza" dated a French Canadian. Further investigation suggests some origin to Canadian NA tribes. Not that far a parallel Again, good point, as was Larry's (similar) point about the Irish. But are there any Irish or Canadians who are offended? If so, then they should change it. If not, well then no harm, no foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Again, good point, as with Larry's point about the Irish. But are their any Irish or Canadians who are offended? If so, then they should change it. If not, well then no harm, no foul. Well, what if Keith Olberman or Bob Costas felt uncomfortable. They don't matter? And as has been stated before, similar to the PETA protests to Packers, what if some are. I'm sure there are some Irish or Irish Americans not accepting of the 'FIGHTING' Irish mascot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Oh. Missed the edit. I must have been responding to the first version of the stupid argument. Is it your contention that the Washington Redskins are a race? No more than Chicago Bears are animals or New York Jets are airplanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But are there any Irish or Canadians who are offended? If so, then they should change it. Ah, a revision. If there is any person who objects, then it should be changed. Much more egalitarian. (Unless you're one of the people who aren't offended, and whose opinions are being considered irrelevant.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I'm sure there are some Irish or Irish Americans not accepting of the 'FIGHTING' Irish mascot. Then their campaign sucks compared to that of the NA intelligentsia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 No more than Chicago Bears are animals or New York Jets are airplanes. Then it appears you have answered your own question, haven't you. The word "Redskins" does not always refer to a race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Then it appears you have answered your own question, haven't you. The word "Redskins" does not always refer to a race. Sure, but only in the same sense that the word "bear" doesn't always refer to the animal. That seems to me a fairly weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Then their campaign sucks compared to that of the NA intelligentsia. Maybe they're not fighting enough for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Sure, but only in the same sense that the word "bear" doesn't always refer to the animal. Correct. In fact, I suspect that there are numerous words that can be used more than one way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Verizon was a merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE in 2000 and those 3 teams you posted, hows that re-branding going? In 2000 Bell Atlantic merged with GTE, which operated telecommunications companies across most of the rest of the country that was not already in Bell Atlantic's footprint. The combined company elected to change its name to "Verizon", a portmanteau of veritas (Latin for "truth") and horizon. The company elected to change its name. In other words, they rebranded. http://www.verizon.com/about/our-company/history-timeline?page=2 The first definition you had there is not a "definition", it's a trademark reference. Similarly you can find "Kleenex", not as a definition but as a trademark. Also, I'd love a link...because I'm not seeing it Merriam-Webster DICTIONARY definitions: oreo Go to the very link you posted above and scroll down 3 inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Actually, the word "Oreo" refers to people. And only to people. According to the dictionary. I would quit citing the dictionary as definitive proof that a usage which the dictionary is required to pretend, doesn't exist, is offensive. And then people won't have to point out the fact that dictionaries ignore proper nouns. Only if your definition of "lie" is "doesn't fit the false narrative I'm trying to push". I wasn't clear. My reference to lying was to your statements above in defending your Redskins/Oreo comparison - that dictionaries pretend that proper nouns don't exist. I pulled several examples demonstrating that's not the case. And I use the term "lying" as a gentle jab back at you, deploying a tactic you seem to use in arguments when someone posts something that is proven to be wrong. Really, the more generous response than "You lied," is "You are mistaken." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 By the way, "the Washington Oreos" has a nice ring to it. Food for thought. depends on the dictionary. Here's a link to a couple that don't mention cookie for Oreo: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oreo http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oreo Uh, BOTH of those links mention the cookie in describing the origin of the term. Scroll down a couple inches on each page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Uh, BOTH of those links mention the cookie in describing the origin of the term. Scroll down a couple inches on each page. But not in the definition of the term. (Although, apparently, Oxford does list it there. Which, I confess, rather surprises me.) Yes, it is true that the term "redskin" did not originate with the football team. (Or the potato.) (I feel a strange urging to paraphrase R Lee Ermy: "Jesus was here before the Corps, so you can give your soul to Jesus.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Then their campaign sucks compared to that of the NA intelligentsia. So, I wanted to see if there was any groundswell for protests against ND mascot. Most is just via written commentary, but I will not be one bit surprised if it doesn't surface more in the future. I knew a friend of a friend at this protest to ND mascot. He said story left out some details. There were barrels of Jameson tapped and a corn beef and cabbage tent went up in smoke. http://brokenworldnews.com/2013/10/21/protest-of-university-of-notre-dame-fighting-irish-nickname-ends-in-drunken-brawl/ Anyway, it led to a link that highlighted the largest turnout in Landover. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/29/redskins-protest-home-game_n_6390570.html Literally 100's present. Saying the movement against the racially insensitive ND mascot 'sucks' compared to NA intelligentsia is a bit overstated. Lacking maybe, not as strong yes...but compared to the hundred or so that made the largest turnout ever in DC, I wouldn't say it sucks. (Please save the Minnesota protest links, I'm aware) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 But not in the definition of the term. (Although, apparently, Oxford does list it there. Which, I confess, rather surprises me.) Yes, it is true that the term "redskin" did not originate with the football team. (Or the potato.) (I feel a strange urging to paraphrase R Lee Ermy: "Jesus was here before the Corps, so you can give your soul to Jesus.") I've honestly lost track of what your argument is. I do admire your tenacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 So, I wanted to see if there was any groundswell for protests against ND mascot. Most is just via written commentary, but I will not be one bit surprised if it doesn't surface more in the future. I knew a friend of a friend at this protest to ND mascot. He said story left out some details. There were barrels of Jameson tapped and a corn beef and cabbage tent went up in smoke. http://brokenworldnews.com/2013/10/21/protest-of-university-of-notre-dame-fighting-irish-nickname-ends-in-drunken-brawl/ Anyway, it led to a link that highlighted one of the largest turnouts in Landover. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/29/redskins-protest-home-game_n_6390570.html Literally 100's present. Saying the movement against the racially insensitive ND mascot 'sucks' compared to NA intelligentsia is a bit overstated. Lacking maybe, not as strong yes...but compared to the hundred or so that made the largest turnout ever in DC, I wouldn't say it sucks. (Please save the Minnesota protest links, I'm aware) But the media, and politicians, aren't paying attention to it. Therefore it's not as good. I've honestly lost track of what your argument is. I do admire your tenacity. I'll make it simple to you. When a dictionary says that the word "redskin" is offensive, they are not referring to the name of the football team. (Just like, when they say that "Oreo" is offensive, they aren't referring to the cookie.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Literally 100's present. Saying the movement against the racially insensitive ND mascot 'sucks' compared to NA intelligentsia is a bit overstated. Lacking maybe, not as strong yes...but compared to the hundred or so that made the largest turnout ever in DC, I wouldn't say it sucks. (Please save the Minnesota protest links, I'm aware) Really? For better or worse, there's no disputing that the name change movement has picked up steam. The President of the United States has opined that the name should change. The U.S. Patent Office and federal courts have declared the Redskins name patently offensive. Various Members of Congress have written the NFL league office urging that the name be changed. The mayor of the city the team represents has declared that the team cannot relocate within the city limits unless the name changes. News outlets that will no longer use the name (as of Sept. 2014): - Seattle Times - New york Daily News - Washington Post editorial board - Detroit News - Orange County Register - San Francisco Chronicle - Capital News Service - Syracuse New Times - Richmond Free Press - Slate - Mother Jones - The New Republic - DCist - Washington City Paper - Kansas City Star - The Oregonian I'll make it simple to you. When a dictionary says that the word "redskin" is offensive, they are not referring to the name of the football team. And I'll make it simple for you. If that's what you want to hang your hat on, the cause is doomed. Talk about splitting hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 And I'll make it simple for you. If that's what you want to hang your hat on, the cause is doomed. Talk about splitting hairs. And I'll make it simpler for you. I'm not "hanging my hat" on this. You are. (Or at least, whoever the morons were who decided to attempt, for the 1,200th time, to claim that the dictionary says that the name of the football team is offensive. I confess I don't remember if you're one of the morons who started it, or if you simply came in later, to try to prop up that decaying horse's carcass.) And pointing out that the argument that somebody else is making, does not in any say what they claim it does, is "splitting hairs"? We've seen "but one of those is a cookie and the other isn't" used as an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Really? For better or worse, there's no disputing that the name change movement has picked up steam. The President of the United States has opined that the name should change. The U.S. Patent Office and federal courts have declared the Redskins name patently offensive. Various Members of Congress have written the NFL league office urging that the name be changed. The mayor of the city the team represents has declared that the team cannot relocate within the city limits unless the name changes. News outlets that will no longer use the name (as of Sept. 2014): - Seattle Times - New york Daily News - Washington Post editorial board - Detroit News - Orange County Register - San Francisco Chronicle - Capital News Service - Syracuse New Times - Richmond Free Press - Slate - Mother Jones - The New Republic - DCist - Washington City Paper - Kansas City Star - The Oregonian And I'll make it simple for you. If that's what you want to hang your hat on, the cause is doomed. Talk about splitting hairs. I wasn't disputing the name change picked up stream, the thread is evidence enough. My point was facetious in some regards, since I was relating it to a non-existent ND protest. But, as one of the comments stated, you could get a 100 people to protest a high school lunch menu. So, saying one group sucks, for better or for worse, the protests the 'NA Intelligentsia' have organized haven't been Earth shattering. The POTUS also wouldn't want his boys, if he had them, to play football. And good thing, as I said before, based on how he throws a ball. The judges have made rulings and appeals are underway, see what happens. The members of Congress that have historically low approval ratings? Hitch your wagon to them, be my guest Should I list newspapers still using the word? It would be a lot longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 This Oreo argument is and has been really really ****ing weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 This Oreo argument is and has been really really ****ing weird. Yeah. It's inexplicable, why people just bring that up, for no reason at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Yeah. It's inexplicable, why people just bring that up, for no reason at all. Because it's a cookie? And a popular insult by George Jefferson? Therefore...syllogism!! (I had a bizarre Civ Pro professor in law school who spent half the year not actually teaching Civil Procedure but rather syllogisms. I was not happy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Lib haters, junk food, definition wars, badges/colors/symbolism/FREEDOM!, iron-boot PC oppression and soul-wrenching persecution. It's all a fundamental part of just having a good time with our perpetually losing football team. Another landmark thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.