Ax Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 How do you "take away" a fight song? Well, if "Redskins" is successfully labeled racist, as is the goal of the PC crowd, uttering it publicly will be viewed no differently than saying ""n-word"" (n-word). effectively killing the song from any use other than fans singing it at the stadium. Which will be cause for their ejection. That is what the PC wingnuts are after. And they won't stop until they get it. So, you're predicting that i could get arrested or a citation if i wear my redskins cap in public? How do they go about 'banning' any of this? they can take away a trademark, but even THAT can't force them to stop using it. There's not a thing that the government can 'force' on this front. ~Bang I'm sure arrested, and fined, would be the ultimate goal of the Doo Doo Gooders. But at a minimum, you could be turned away from the stadium. Stores, restaurants, etc..., could have you either remove the shirt, or be refused entry/service. This wouldn't happen right away, but do you doubt that it's not the endgame for these, er um, people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Well, if "Redskins" is successfully labeled racist, as is the goal of the PC crowd, uttering it publicly will be viewed no differently than saying ""n-word"" (n-word). effectively killing the song from any use other than fans singing it at the stadium. Which will be cause for their ejection. That is what the PC wingnuts are after. And they won't stop until they get it. I'm sure arrested, and fined, would be the ultimate goal of the Doo Doo Gooders. But at a minimum, you could be turned away from the stadium. Stores, restaurants, etc..., could have you either remove the shirt, or be refused entry/service. This wouldn't happen right away, but do you doubt that it's not the endgame for these, er um, people? Having a bout with paranoid nutbaggery today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Well, if "Redskins" is successfully labeled racist, as is the goal of the PC crowd, uttering it publicly will be viewed no differently than saying ""n-word"" (n-word). effectively killing the song from any use other than fans singing it at the stadium. Which will be cause for their ejection. That is what the PC wingnuts are after. And they won't stop until they get it. I'm sure arrested, and fined, would be the ultimate goal of the Doo Doo Gooders. But at a minimum, you could be turned away from the stadium. Stores, restaurants, etc..., could have you either remove the shirt, or be refused entry/service. This wouldn't happen right away, but do you doubt that it's not the endgame for these, er um, people? Their endgame or not.. i don't see it. In terms of actual real things, this is a butterfly fart. The PC crowd isn't that strong in this situation, and won't be. the Peter Kings and Bob Costas' and Twitter Twerp Wise and such do not represent the general overall feeling of the American public here. And according to every poll that's ever been taken of the overall general population on this particular issue, it's not even close. Not even in the ballpark. If the restaurant decides people wearing a Redskins shirt are not welcome, they could find themselves losing a lot more than just Redskins fans as customers. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I hope you're right Bang. But we've seen what a media driven agenda can finally accomplish, when people get tired of being falsely/incorrectly labeled. Having a bout with paranoid nutbaggery today? Strike a nerve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Strike a nerve? I just hope if a nerve was struck, it was not on either of yalls nutbaggeries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Strike a nerve? Not really. I'm on the same side of the debate as you. Some of your concerns are just a little out there though. As someone who wants the name to stay, I prefer people arguing for that same side to sound less... I don't know... Unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The same survey that was collected at Pow-Wows from California State University. Oddly, they tell you about the Pow-Wows in the 'For Whites' section. Conclusions: 1. The Redskins team name is a racial/racist word and symbol (mmmm...this should be 100% yes, of course it is racial) 2. The name-symbol is disrespectful to Native Americans (why are the name and symbol part of this question? They are two separate things) 3. Professional sports teams should be allowed to use racial terms and names like the Redskins (Odd, the first two questions imply that we shouldn't. Oh, I get it now, it just used racial this time.) 4. If Indians (or non Native People) use Redskins it is not racial/racist and acceptable to use. (Odd, it's still racial) 5. If non-Indians (or Whites) use Redskins it is racial/racist and unacceptable to use. Those are not the conclusions, those are the questions. Only the results of question 1 and 5 are listed. Anyone who cites the results of that poll without questioning the methodology should have their journalist card revoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Those are not the conclusions, those are the questions. Only the results of question 1 and 5 are listed. Anyone who cites the results of that poll without questioning the methodology should have their journalist card revoked. Ahhh, you are right! My reading comprehension skills suck today. That is what happens when you get 4 hours of sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 We allow a lot slack depending on matters of context, history, etc. including being harsh (see rule 5), but let's make sure it doesn't lead to time off. Being judicious and appropriate in the use of "edgy" rebukes matters. Alternate methods of making a point is always safer, if not as much fun sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSkin Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I'd love it if we could keep the name and just take away all imagery as a compromise if needed (couch it as referring to our uniform color), but do you guys suggesting it really think that would fly with those who are so adamant against it? They will decry that solution as unacceptable and say the word is still a slur, especially since it will have been our name, fully associated with all of the imagery until dropping the NA references and imagery. I wish it could be that simple though. To me, I think it's obvious they want the name gone absolutely, first and foremost, with no exception. As for the fight song, a few simple modifications would work. Singular-ize brave. I do think some of the most radical elements would like to see the song go, but I don't see any way that's happening unless decided by the team. I highly doubt fans would stop singing it anyway. They can't make us forget it. Hail to the ? Hail Victory Brave, on the warpath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls/_/category/368 click on 'Should Redskins change name'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 In fairness, it's a joke that gets funnier every single time it's posted. Nah. I'm about sick and tired of seeing the same tired "Redskin Potatoes" joke. Should've died a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 The same survey that was collected at Pow-Wows from California State University. Maybe my reading comprehension is off today and I am not looking at the study with clear vision. Edit: Because my reading comprehension does suck today. Glad I put the disclaimer here. That study was garbage. And it speaks to the honesty of the name change crowd who continue to use it in their arguments. They only surveyed 98 Native Americans, ALL LOCALLY, none of them lived outside the state of California, and all the questions were leading questions designed to get a certain response. And even after all of that, they could only get 67% to call it racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 That study was garbage. And it speaks to the honesty of the name change crowd who continue to use it in their arguments. They only surveyed 98 Native Americans, ALL LOCALLY, none of them lived outside the state of California, and all the questions were leading questions designed to get a certain response. And even after all of that, they could only get 67% to call it racist. Yeah I never pull that out and I'm someone whose very receptive to a change, even if it's not my personal preference. I would like to see Annenberg or a legitimate polling firm do a new study/poll though. That poll is a decade old now and we all know how much America can change its opinion in a decade(Looking at you, Pot/SSM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Nah. I'm about sick and tired of seeing the same tired "Redskin Potatoes" joke. Should've died a long time ago. Me, I'm getting tired of the whole "let's just keep calling them Redskins, and claim it's not about Natives" meme (of which that is simply a joke of a component.) No, I'm not going to lie, and claim that the Redskins name isn't about Natives. Because the team is named after the race. It's named proudly, but it's about the race. And I'm not going to disgrace myself, and the name, by lying about it. (And, if the people who've been making that suggestion are just being sarcastic, and I missed it, then I apologize. I fell for it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I would like to see Annenberg or a legitimate polling firm do a new study/poll though. That poll is a decade old now and we all know how much America can change its opinion in a decade(Looking at you, Pot/SSM) I'd like to see it, too. Don't think you're gonna see Danny pay for it, though. Cause he knows that, if the results have changed (let's say the "percent offended" has gone from 9% to 18%), then it will be portrayed as "the rising swell of opposition". And, similarly, if the name changers do it, and it shows 18% offended, it's not a majority, so it doesn't help them. (And, besides, they're winning the PR war by leaps and bounds, without any facts. It's not like they need any.) Now, I suppose, if ESPN actually considered themselves journalists, then they might pay for one. But frankly, they're making money from feeding "the controversy". Why would they want to maybe end it? No, I suspect that the only people who actually want to know what actual Natives think, are us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCitySkin Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I'm not being sarcastic. I'm proposing getting off on a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I'm proposing getting off on a technicality. This is also just an excellent life-plan when made more encompassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Why wouldn't the advocates for the change fund an impartial poll of NAs? My guess is they don't want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwback37 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I'd like to see it, too. Don't think you're gonna see Danny pay for it, though. Cause he knows that, if the results have changed (let's say the "percent offended" has gone from 9% to 18%), then it will be portrayed as "the rising swell of opposition". And, similarly, if the name changers do it, and it shows 18% offended, it's not a majority, so it doesn't help them. (And, besides, they're winning the PR war by leaps and bounds, without any facts. It's not like they need any.) Now, I suppose, if ESPN actually considered themselves journalists, then they might pay for one. But frankly, they're making money from feeding "the controversy". Why would they want to maybe end it? No, I suspect that the only people who actually want to know what actual Natives think, are us. Another reason why Dan may not want to even bring up a new poll is because the complainants in the Trademark case need to prove that the name was derogatory to Native Americans at the time the trademark/copyright protection was filed. A new poll won't help the Redskins in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Another reason why Dan may not want to even bring up a new poll is because the complainants in the Trademark case need to prove that the name was derogatory to Native Americans at the time the trademark/copyright protection was filed. A new poll won't help the Redskins in that regard. the main reason Dan should not conduct the poll is because these days people are proudly and fiercely ignorant, stupid for the sake of it, and refuse to accept facts unless they find them out themselves. And even then they will refuse to accept it because they will simply make up another reason why the facts are not really facts at all. AND, given the team mentality of modern political-think, their supporters would support them in throwing away facts, and would assist them in denying them until they were hoarse from screaming. Based on the entire way the Harjo five have conducted themselves so far, and based on the entire movement's demonstrated desire to ignore those who they 'represent' when they disagree... a poll could show that they are the only 5 people on planet earth who want this, and they still wouldn't care. Facts are not important to them. Surveys of their people are not important. They do not care what any polls may say, they do not care to even ask the question. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Not really. I'm on the same side of the debate as you. Some of your concerns are just a little out there though. As someone who wants the name to stay, I prefer people arguing for that same side to sound less... I don't know... Unstable. I'm glad you're on the same side of the debate. I also realize that some of my concerns are worse case scenario. I don't get how mentioning real possibilities, regardless of how far fetched you might think they are, could be labeled as, unstable. If you just want to take shots, that's fine by me. If you'd rather talk specifically about the possibilities I mention, that's fine too. the main reason Dan should not conduct the poll is because these days people are proudly and fiercely ignorant, stupid for the sake of it, and refuse to accept facts unless they find them out themselves. And even then they will refuse to accept it because they will simply make up another reason why the facts are not really facts at all. AND, given the team mentality of modern political-think, their supporters would support them in throwing away facts, and would assist them in denying them until they were hoarse from screaming. Based on the entire way the Harjo five have conducted themselves so far, and based on the entire movement's demonstrated desire to ignore those who they 'represent' when they disagree... a poll could show that they are the only 5 people on planet earth who want this, and they still wouldn't care. Facts are not important to them. Surveys of their people are not important. They do not care what any polls may say, they do not care to even ask the question. ~Bang Agreed. And this is why I'm concerned that their "No-win" case, when looked at honestly, could somehow win the day. It's the trajectory of this country to embrace the absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Ah come on TK, think of all the concession stand possibiltities if our logo was a potato! Boardwalk Fries everywhere! Hail to the Freedom Fries? Hail victory! French on the retreat Fight for old DC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Why wouldn't the advocates for the change fund an impartial poll of NAs? My guess is they don't want to know. Frankly, my guess is they have. You can pay to have a poll designed and conducted for a few thousand dollars. It seems almost impossible that some of these actors wouldn't do it because of the ease and the power of the message. The Annenberg Poll is really the only high powered trump card the Redskins have. Now, while it's easy and relatively cheap to get such a survey done... you aren't forced to publish the results of it. You can keep it internal if you don't like the findings. My guess is that that's the case here. Besides, they feel they're winning without the poll. The only thing it would do is weaken or destroy their case unless what they were so is really true... which multiple other polls prove unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 So there were zero complaints to the US Patent Office leading to the stripping of the trademark. They just did it for the hell of it on their own accord. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/ This will be good. And people wonder why this executive branch is liked even less than George Bush Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.