KuNiT21 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I agree; however, it's a very small number of Redskin fans who want to change the name. I personally don't understand them at all. If they find it so offensive, why are they still fans of the football team. As far as I'm concerned, they can go perfume their own vanities and express their faux outrage somewhere else. This has absolutely 0 to do with being offensive. This is a political agenda of the left. This is nothing but little whiny overly sensitive liberals being hurt over political correctness. Pretty soon we can't use the term "Master Bedroom". Oh wait....it's already deemed sexist/racist even without knowing the true nature of the term. Pathetic loss for everyone. I cannot fathom calling the Redskins something else, wearing different gear, everything. It's like starting over for something you have so involved in for 20 years. It's pathetic and everyone should be ashamed who wants the name change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I'm confused. Where's the outrage? Why aren't they trying to get them to change their name? Why not cancel their trademarks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I think we should change the name to the Washington Fightin' Native Americans. (Like Fightin Irish). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Red Man is not a racial slur. Neither is White Man or Black Man. Try again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mammajamma Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 not really a big deal. not only with this be in appeals court for a few years, its not like the majority of fans are going to suddenly start calling them something else. most fans will still wear redskins gear to games, still call them the redskins, and still sing hail to the redskins after every TD. its not like the wizards/bullets deal where a majority of the town didnt really care about the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 This has absolutely 0 to do with being offensive. This is a political agenda of the left. This is nothing but little whiny overly sensitive liberals being hurt over political correctness. Pretty soon we can't use the term "Master Bedroom". Oh wait....it's already deemed sexist/racist even without knowing the true nature of the term. Pathetic loss for everyone. I cannot fathom calling the Redskins something else, wearing different gear, everything. It's like starting over for something you have so involved in for 20 years. It's pathetic and everyone should be ashamed who wants the name change. Yeah, I know. I just don't understand liberals and it's behavior like this that ruins any good arguments they have for other topics. I have zero respect for a so-called Redskin fan who wants the name to change, but hasn't boycotted our team or football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofAlvinWalton Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 In Chicago I'm already hearing "Redhawks" being thrown around. A play on "Blackhawks" obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 This has absolutely 0 to do with being offensive. This is a political agenda of the left. This is nothing but little whiny overly sensitive liberals being hurt over political correctness. Pretty soon we can't use the term "Master Bedroom". Oh wait....it's already deemed sexist/racist even without knowing the true nature of the term. Pathetic loss for everyone. I cannot fathom calling the Redskins something else, wearing different gear, everything. It's like starting over for something you have so involved in for 20 years. It's pathetic and everyone should be ashamed who wants the name change. Meh. I'm a super liberal and I don't want the name changed. Try backing away from the politics part and just stick to the name. In Chicago I'm already hearing "Redhawks" being thrown around. A play on "Blackhawks" obviously. Funny, Redskins came from a play on Red Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The reason that they are coming after us is because…THE WORD REDSKINS IS. A. RACIAL. SLUR…It just is. "mboyd" is a slur. im serious. don't believe me? "that guy as a low life, mother ****ing mboyd!" see what i did there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Hell, I would absolutely love it if we go to the Super Bowl WITH all the media ****storm about our name. I'm for Dan sticking with the name, and sticking it to all of the perpetually offended in this country. "Ooh .. I'm offended at you using the term "..." " "Ooh, I'm offended that you don't condone my choice of lifestyle" "Ooh, I'm offended that you're not offended just like I am offended .." I would love to stick it in the faces of these whiners at a Super Bowl! I'm SO SICK of the bedwetting whiners in this country who think that EVERYONE must agree with them! Or else they will take your job and your company away. It's time to put our feet down and step up to these whiners before they take away even our freedom to believe what we choose to believe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Red Man is not a racial slur. Neither is White Man or Black Man. Try again... If that's your logic, why are you a fan of such an overtly racist organisation to begin with? And if you feel so strongly yet STILL support them, what does that make you? Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 A warrior is good at war (read: killing people). Nope, not offensive at all! Yeah, good luck with that line of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 A warrior is good at war (read: killing people). Nope, not offensive at all! War doesn't have to be killing people. War could be anything, metaphorical war, non-violent war, etc. Warrior is used in a sports context all the time having nothing to do with death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Yeah, I know. I just don't understand liberals and it's behavior like this that ruins any good arguments they have for other topics. I have zero respect for a so-called Redskin fan who wants the name to change, but hasn't boycotted our team or football. This really has nothing to do with modern-style political labeling. It's really a battle between those with an eye to the future and those who wish to live in the past. Times change, opinions change and countries change and some wish to change and adapt with them while others lack that will and sit sadly while the world passes them by. "mboyd" is a slur. im serious. don't believe me? "that guy as a low life, mother ****ing mboyd!" see what i did there? Uh….no, I did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 "mboyd" is a slur. im serious. don't believe me? "that guy as a low life, mother ****ing mboyd!" see what i did there? The Polish Hammer in his avatar is offensive as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Why are we still addressing the "origin" of the word? How is that relevant in any way? just speaking for me, i think its relevant because every person who has taken a stance against a name change keeps repeating how the name comes from scalping, which would make their offense understandable. but thats just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 "mboyd" is a slur. im serious. don't believe me? "that guy as a low life, mother ****ing mboyd!" see what i did there? Hey man it's not that simple. You have to get PFT to write a few hundred articles on it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Red Man is not a racial slur. Neither is White Man or Black Man. Try again... Depends on the context. But the LOGO....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 This has absolutely 0 to do with being offensive. This is a political agenda of the left. This is nothing but little whiny overly sensitive liberals being hurt over political correctness. Pretty soon we can't use the term "Master Bedroom". Oh wait....it's already deemed sexist/racist even without knowing the true nature of the term. Pathetic loss for everyone. I cannot fathom calling the Redskins something else, wearing different gear, everything. It's like starting over for something you have so involved in for 20 years. It's pathetic and everyone should be ashamed who wants the name change. Let it be known that I am against a name change. But... I don't buy the 'slippery slope' argument at all, though. Sure, "Chiefs" and "Braves" reference Native Americans...but those are names that have never been used as a racial slur. That's the big difference. Now, we all know that the history of the term and it's association with this franchise has been nothing short of positive and empowering. That doesn't change. Neither does the fact that even some (most?) Native Americans don't personally find the term offensive. But, the fact that some DO view it as a racial slur is the caveat. Racism has a rich history in this country and is a very touchy subject...And with American opinion and politics more polarizing than ever, this is magnified 10x. I'm a white dude. I don't find the name offensive. But I can't look a Native American in the face, who is offended by the term, and tell them it's not an offensive racial slur. What ground would I have to stand on? Edit: I imagine I'll be called a guilty liberal pansy... but I view it as being respectful and having an open mind, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 http://brandbodyguards.com/will-the-redskins-be-able-to-keep-their-name/ . http://time.com/33837/washington-redskins-dan-snyder-nfl-trademark/ Sounds like the trademark office is admitting they made a mistake by issuing the trademarks in the first place. That would be a legitimate explanation. But I'm sure people will call shenanigans on that. You're not really allowed to admit mistakes. If you made a decision, you're supposed to stand by it forever, come hell or high water. Re-evaluation no allowed. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If that's your logic, why are you a fan of such an overtly racist organisation to begin with? And if you feel so strongly yet STILL support them, what does that make you? Hail. The organization is not "overtly racist". The nickname, and the nickname only, is antiquated and found to offensive by many Americans. i want to address that issue while maintaining as much of the history and tradition of the team as possible. What does that make me? Proud, Loyal and probably a bit more of a non-conformist than you, that's all. Hail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 My personal opinion: I started as being pretty ambivalent to the name change, seeing how it might be offensive to some, and understanding that, and while I don't think there's any INTENT to be offensive, sometimes there are unintended consequences. I wasn't for the name change, but at least I could understand the point of view that it was offensive. The longer the saga went on, however, the more I was convinced that the name ISN'T offensive, but the real problem is that it has become an agenda item for certain members of the media and politicians to show how politically correct they are. And there is a lot of hatred for Dan Snyder and the team, and a real good way to "get revenge" is to attack the name. Now, I'm actually firmly in the camp of "change the name." And it's for only one reason: This is not a fight the team is going to win. It can't win. Eventually, due to sponsors pulling out, lost revenue from merchandising, and general distraction, the team is going to have to change the name. And I think that the sooner they do it, the more they can do it on their own terms. My biggest frustration is the party that the idiots who have been waving this flag are going to throw. It's pathetic that they're going to win this battle. But they are going to win, and then they are going to gloat. I wish there was a way to deny them that satisfaction, but I don't see how they can avoid it. I think it's sad, and it's tragic. As for what the name will be, I honestly don't care at this point. I'm going to root for the team regardless. I think the Chief's head is one of the most iconic, traditional, and respectful icons in sports. It would be a shame to lose that. It would be a shame to lose the fight song. It would be a shame to lose the Burgundy and Gold. My preference is that the 'Skins organization finds a tribe that's willing to get behind the team, and "sponsor" it, if you will, and lend it's name to the team. Kindof like the Seminols and Illioni. And then the team builds a relationship with that tribe, supports them, and uses their name. That way some of the imagery could stay. But absent that, I think that they should scrap the hole native American thing, and become something completely unrelated. This whole thing is just very discouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 This is all working out nicely for Danny. He's going to act like he doesn't want the name changed, but will employ teams to do focus groups on a new name. When he's finally forced, he will have a new name, possibly new uniform and logos, and will rake in a ton of money from all the new gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 War doesn't have to be killing people. War could be anything, metaphorical war, non-violent war, etc. Warrior is used in a sports context all the time having nothing to do with death. Yeah, good luck with that line of thinking. War is offensive. Additionally, if you keep the mascot, these same "offended" groups will want it to change sooner rather than later. Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The Polish Hammer in his avatar is offensive as well. If you are offended, I will change it. See how easy that was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.