The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[Thekyle1591]

I don't think you understand the true meaning of "Freedom of speech"...

And frankly, "political correctness" is basically a"How not to be jackass/moron" test, which many many people fail on a routine basis

Yes there are certain limits on what you can say, but when a man is talking in a private phone call he has every right to be an ignorant bigot. I'm all for political correctness, but when the idea of political correctness would override the mans ability to do what he wants with his property, that is not right in my book.

[grego]

Their voice is not loud enough and pockets is not deep enough. Nobody really cares what they think about the name. I don't know why you guys continue to post that irrelevant poll. What say does Native Americans have in this country anymore?

 

 

not sure what you mean (but maybe thats a good thing)- i care what they think. why on earth would the annenberg poll be irrelevant?

 

(countdown to regretting responding in 3..............2..................1.............)

[Spearfeather]

 

 

 

And frankly, "political correctness" is basically a"How not to be jackass/moron" test, which many many people fail on a routine basis

 

 

I think in many cases, it ends up only being cosmetic. It doesn't really keep them from being jackasses or morons.

[Larry]

I think in many cases, it ends up only being cosmetic. It doesn't really keep them from being jackasses or morons.

 

Admittedly, that is a difficult goal to achieve, in some cases.  

[Bang]

A right to protect their image? Well then the NFL owners have a right to force Snyder to change the name, to protect their brand from a racial slur. I find it funny how we have supposed "freedom of speech" yet when someone says he doesn't like blacks (which he has the right to do) he is forced to sell his team. The idea of political correctness has seemingly overtaken the idea of freedom of speech.

What the NBA is doing is in their league by-laws that all the owners abide by.

You saying "well, then the NFL gets to do that". means absolutely nothing.

 

if it is in the by-laws, then they can.

But given how much money they earn off of the Redskins, and how drastically changing a large brand in america has typically resulted in financial disaster for the brand, and how the potential loss of revenue could hurt the league, i wouldn't hold my breath on it if I were you.

 

 

It's pathetic how many people in this country have absolutely no idea what "Freedom of Speech" means, and what it protects you from. You should go find your history and civics teachers and apologize to them.

 

~Bang

[Thekyle1591]

What the NBA is doing is in their league by-laws that all the owners abide by.

You saying "well, then the NFL gets to do that". means absolutely nothing.

if it is in the by-laws, then they can.

But given how much money they earn off of the Redskins, and how drastically changing a large brand in america has typically resulted in financial disaster for the brand, and how the potential loss of revenue could hurt the league, i wouldn't hold my breath on it if I were you.

It's pathetic how many people in this country have absolutely no idea what "Freedom of Speech" means, and what it protects you from. You should go find your history and civics teachers and apologize to them.

~Bang

I'm not "holding my breath" Ive never advocated for a name change. I'm simply stating that Snyder shouldn't be pressured to do anything with his team that he doesn't want to.

As for freedom of speech, I never said you have the right to say anything you want, but a man has a right to speak his mind on a PRIVATE phone call does he not? Don't know why you feel the need to insult me either..

[Larry]

As for freedom of speech, I never said you have the right to say anything you want, but a man has a right to speak his mind on a PRIVATE phone call does he not?

1) No.

2) If it were private, we wouldn't know about it.

[Bang]

I'm not "holding my breath" Ive never advocated for a name change. I'm simply stating that Snyder shouldn't be pressured to do anything with his team that he doesn't want to.

As for freedom of speech, I never said you have the right to say anything you want, but a man has a right to speak his mind on a PRIVATE phone call does he not?

The man's right to speak his mind was not violated.

No one has any "right to privacy."

 

You do only until the other party decides you don't. Claiming there is some law against recording phone calls is pretty much useless, because even if it exists it never matters, especially if you've said something controversial.

Arguing for it these days is a pipe dream,, a bygone thing from a bygone era. Nowadays it's best to assume you're on record somewhere. (Especially if you hire a woman like her to take down your thoughts for posterity.)

But I feel where you're coming from.

The best thing to do is if you have such thoughts is to keep them to yourself. Hell, the best thing to do with pretty much ANY of your thoughts is to keep them to yourself.

Most people you know in your life, most people I know in my life, most people everyone knows in all of their lives will sell them out for a very low price. 10 seconds on TMZ would do it for most.

if there is any lesson for we common folk to take from the NBA situation; it's that. 

 

 

So far, Snyder doesn't seem to be caving to any pressure. Him i would not worry about. for all his faults, he's as passionate about the team as you and me,, if not more.

 

the trademark ruling, this could be problematic.

 

 

Does anyone know when that is expected? As far as i know it has not been decided yet?

 

~Bang

[Thekyle1591]

1) No.

2) If it were private, we wouldn't know about it.

It was a private phone call made public.

[DogofWar1]

We should just keep all the imagery and colors and change our name to the Washington Oklahomans.

 

Then everyone can feel really freakin' stupid about the whole thing.

[Bang]

It was a private phone call made public.

Well, it sure bought a lot of pub for the girl..  at that point you have to assume everyone will turn on you.

You'd have to be an idiot to not know how it works.

 

He is such an idiot, apparently.

~Bang

[Thekyle1591]

Well, it sure bought a lot of pub for the girl..  at that point you have to assume everyone will turn on you.

You'd have to be an idiot to not know how it works.

 

He is such an idiot, apparently.

~Bang

He is certainly an idiot. Anyone who thinks that way certainly is. 

 

But I'm kind of confused as to how his comments were outside the boundaries of the first amendment, as he simply spoke his mind on a phone call that was intended to stay private. How is that unacceptable when the Westbro Baptist Church or the KKK can spout their ignorance publicly and be protected by the first amendment?  Maybe you could explain to me where I got mixed up. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yes there are certain limits on what you can say, but when a man is talking in a private phone call he has every right to be an ignorant bigot. I'm all for political correctness, but when the idea of political correctness would override the mans ability to do what he wants with his property, that is not right in my book.

Aren't league owners essentially like partners? No one is throwing Sterling in jail...the man is going to get hundreds of millions of dollars to give up ownership because his "partners" are uncomfortable continuing the partnership. I don't see the issue at all or how his rights are being violated.

[grego]

He is certainly an idiot. Anyone who thinks that way certainly is.

But I'm kind of confused as to how his comments were outside the boundaries of the first amendment, as he simply spoke his mind on a phone call that was intended to stay private. How is that unacceptable when the Westbro Baptist Church or the KKK can spout their ignorance publicly and be protected by the first amendment? Maybe you could explain to me where I got mixed up.

Any idiot can speak their mind, no matter how ignorant.

I think in the case of sterling, he's bound by the rules of the nba.

In the case of westboro, the Dixie chicks, or any regular goofball, you can say what you want. Doesn't mean detractors won't boycott you- but you can say it.

That always annoyed me about the Dixie chicks- they threw a grenade and pretended they were surprised it blew up. They "hid" behind the first amendment.

Nobody said (no sane person) they didn't have a right to say what they did.

/ soapbox

[Larry]

But I'm kind of confused as to how his comments were outside the boundaries of the first amendment, as he simply spoke his mind on a phone call that was intended to stay private.

The actions you're objecting to (him losing the team) is outside the boundaries of the First Amendment, because the First Amendment regulates that the government can do. It does not regulate what the NBA can do.

 

If you're in a "private" phone call, and you call your boss an ignorant a-hole, and the boss hears it, then your boss can fire you. 

 

Let's say a coworker recorded the call, and plays the tape for the boss. 

 

Now, that might or might not be a crime.  (As I understand it, in some states, it's legal to record a phone call, as long as one of the parties is aware of the recording.  In other states, it's illegal unless all of the parties are aware of the recording.) 

 

But you know what?  Even if the recording were made illegally, then you'd have a case against the person who made the recording.  But your boss can still fire you, anyway.  He is not required to pretend like he didn't hear it. 

 

Just like the First Amendment doesn't say that you have any right to continue pushing this topic, in this thread. 

[Thekyle1591]

You're right Larry. I was unaware of those bylaws, and was thinking that the loss of his team was because of his racist comments, but because he violated an agreement. My bad.

[Bang]

He is certainly an idiot. Anyone who thinks that way certainly is. 

 

But I'm kind of confused as to how his comments were outside the boundaries of the first amendment, as he simply spoke his mind on a phone call that was intended to stay private. How is that unacceptable when the Westbro Baptist Church or the KKK can spout their ignorance publicly and be protected by the first amendment?  Maybe you could explain to me where I got mixed up. 

Because the law isn't doing anything to him, the NBA is. The only thing the first says is that there will be no law restricting him from saying almost anything. Obviously you can't threaten the president, yell fire in a theater, etc. 

But you are free to spout racist crap, you are free to denounce the government, and say pretty much anything controversial you want. mostly what the first insures is that you can denounce the government and speak your mind without fear of becoming a political prisoner, but it can be used to protect you from being arrested for saying pretty much anything.

It does not protect you from other people denouncing you for what you said, or your peers deciding to vote you out of their company because of the money you could potentially cost them, because the first also protects people who say "Let's boycott this league until he's gone"..

 

 

if he wants to press charges against the friend who recorded his phone call, he can.

 

~Bang

You're right Larry. I was unaware of those bylaws, and was thinking that the loss of his team was because of his racist comments, but because he violated an agreement. My bad.

Sorry about that.

 

People hollering about the first is becoming a peeve of mine, but i shouldn't have said that to you.

The first has nothing to do with any phone calls, unless to say it protects you from being arrested for talking on it... unless you talk about acquiring missiles or overthrowing the government,, then the NSA starts listening real close.

 

 

The right to privacy is pretty much a myth... a 'social contract'.

 

~Bang

[Thekyle1591]

Because the law isn't doing anything to him, the NBA is. The only thing the first says is that there will be no law restricting him from saying almost anything. Obviously you can't threaten the president, yell fire in a theater, etc.

But you are free to spout racist crap, you are free to denounce the government, and say pretty much anything controversial you want. mostly what the first insures is that you can denounce the government and speak your mind without fear of becoming a political prisoner, but it can be used to protect you from being arrested for saying pretty much anything.

It does not protect you from other people denouncing you for what you said, or your peers deciding to vote you out of their company because of the money you could potentially cost them, because the first also protects people who say "Let's boycott this league until he's gone"..

if he wants to press charges against the friend who recorded his phone call, he can.

~Bang

Yeah, I got this whole Donald Sterling thing mixed up, and was unaware of the bylaws of the NBA.

[Larry]

The right to privacy is pretty much a myth... a 'social contract'.

~Bang

Well, I think that

1). There IS a right to privacy, from the government.

2). There OUGHT TO BE a right to privacy, in a lot of other settings, protected by legislation.

However, our government, after careful and considered consultation with thousands of lobbyists from the privacy invasion industry, seems to feel otherwise.

And I will again point out that were way off topic.

(Am I REALLY trying to keep the "Redskins name change thread" ON topic?)

[thebluefood]

If the name must change then they should go with Washington Football Club. Keep the colors, keep the logo, keep the song. The fans know what the real name is. They could market a whole bunch of DCFC gear for people who want to buy new stuff. I have no interest in rooting for a team with a new name, new logo and new colors. 

This is exactly what I think should happen, if for no other reason than total spite.

 

You find the nickname so offensive? Fine, no name. Now no one gets offended.

[elkabong82]

A right to protect their image? Well then the NFL owners have a right to force Snyder to change the name, to protect their brand from a racial slur. I find it funny how we have supposed "freedom of speech" yet when someone says he doesn't like blacks (which he has the right to do) he is forced to sell his team. The idea of political correctness has seemingly overtaken the idea of freedom of speech.

 

Let's be real. The NBA is forcing Sterling out because he would have affected their pocketbooks. Players and coaches on playoff teams were going to boycott and sit out games if Sterling wasn't forced out. Per the NBA's by-laws, the owners can't do things that would jeopardize the league financially and that is what the backlash with Sterling was going to lead to.

 

The NFL, however, we do not see people boycotting the Redskins in any kind of significant number. The media may get loud at times, Senators with political agendas may waste their time, but Redskins games are still selling out, merchandise is still being bought, and fans of other teams are still attending games. The NFL's pocketbook isn't getting hurt on this, especially when most of the country is more pissed off at the Senate for wasting their time on this. So long as the NFL's pockets are straight, the Redskins are fine, and by and large there is nowhere near enough support for this to affect their pocketbooks badly. 

 

Sterling was open racism, and against a basketball legend everyone likes, and it got an immediate reaction from players and coaches. The Redskins don't operate in any kind of racist way that would spurn a huge reaction and a bunch of people clamoring for immediate change, the majority of the country thinks we should keep the name. 

[TD Riggo]

Way to derail the conversation from the name change to an uninformed shot at the government.

 

 

Except that Boss_Hog is 100% correct, and in NO way is it an "uninformed shot at the government!"  It is the truth! Perhaps Harry could somehow find time to allow a vote on any ONE of about 70 jobs Bills that he stuffed in his drawer since 2010 and has not allowed to see the light of day?! But no, I can see how it is in the best interest of millions of unemployed Americans for the ruling Party, half of the Senate to spend who knows how many days on the non-issue of the Redskins changing their (un)offensive name!

 

There. I just also just took a (cheap) "political shot at the government!"

[SoCalSkins]

I love the backlash those 50 senators are getting from people telling them to stop wasting their time on such BS.

 

I wrote my 2 Sentors a letter. Here it is:

 

Senator Feinstein/Boxer:

I am appalled to see your signature on the letter to the NFL requesting the Washington Redskins change their name. I would hope that you would exert energy and political capital on more important issues facing Americans today than the name of a football team which is very dear to a large majority of football fans as well as Native Americans.

You surely must be aware of the unifying force that the Redskins bring to the District of Columbia and surrounding area. Regardless of race, political affiliation, economic status and age, the Redskins have been a source of pride and unification for the area. Moreover, given the number of Americans who attend school, internships and are employed for a period of time in Washington DC prior to relocating throughout the United States, their support of the Redskins carries with them. There are very large groups of Redskins fans who are residents of California, including myself and my family.

I can appreciate if you hold a personal view opposed to the name. However, this issue is not as simple as the letter you signed makes it out to be. Additionally, politicizing this issue along party lines is a deplorable act. Professional sports and the NFL are the ultimate in team competition and create an unmatched camaraderie between diverse groups of people coming together in the common cause of rooting for their team which does not exist in any other facet of modern American life. To make this a Democrat versus Republican issue, which is exactly what your letter did with having 50 Democrat signatures and no Republican ones, undermines credibility on an issue that the Senate should not be involved in to begin with.

I am a registered Republican but voted for you in your last re-election bid and I have voted exclusively Democrat over the past 6 years. However, as trivial as this letter may seem, I am very reluctant to support any signatory of the letter going forward.

I urge you to please focus your energy on the economy, environment, education and health care and not engage in this debate further. The vast majority of Americans support the name and claiming that a small percentage of Native Americans speak for the entire Native American population is inaccurate.

Best regards and Hail to the Redskins!

[TD Riggo]

Yes there are certain limits on what you can say, but when a man is talking in a private phone call he has every right to be an ignorant bigot. I'm all for political correctness, but when the idea of political correctness would override the mans ability to do what he wants with his property, that is not right in my book.

 

 

Now, I completely agree with this. Sterling was illegally recorded, and his private conversation was illegally given to the Press. He might be a jackass, but so are millions of people in this country.

[grego]

Nicely done, SoCal.