Fan since a Fetus Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Dream on. If protestors at stadiums increase and sponsors flee its over. The Owners and the Commish will inform Snyder on his new range of options. Did you see the commercial aired during the NBA Finals? Ouch... You realize that commercial claims they call themselves Chiefs, but the people going after the Redskins are going after the Chiefs as well. Does that make you wonder, or is that o.k.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Facts and reason be damned. Kardashian Kulture is Konvinced, and that is all that is needed. oh, what a wonderful world this will be.. ~Bang Remember the NAs? It's in their hands primarily. If they, and their allies, are only an insignificant group of extremists then there's nothing to worry about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 You realize that commercial claims they call themselves Chiefs, but the people going after the Redskins are going after the Chiefs as well. Does that make you wonder, or is that o.k.? It means you have more than one faction amongst those who want the name and mascot changed, which we all knew already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 If protestors at stadiums increase and sponsors flee its over. Pointing out that I referred to what has been presented, in this thread, so far. Responding with "Yeah, but if pigs fly, then . . . " really doesn't dispute what I said. Did you see the commercial aired during the NBA Finals? Nope. Did it contain a single thing that hadn't already been beaten to death, in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 You know what is idiocracy? Coming in here daily looking for opinions to change, but I don't think one side has convinced the other side of anything, on this board that is. Unfortunately, I am guilty of spewing some crap in this thread, and I will cease. Many people make way better points than I do anyhow. Although, some of the crap I wrote were jokes, but my joking doesn't come across online. So they just seem like stupid ignorant ramble. But, I think for my sanity I am bowing out. I am an idiot for the self inflicted anger. However, at least I am not a sheep. BAAAAAHHH! Oops, I just read a CNN article. It means you have more than one faction amongst those who want the name and mascot changed, which we all knew already. I realize that, but that is part of my problem with the situation. They can't agree and Harjo is just in on it for a personal vendetta, which she admits. It's funny, I just read an article of hers titled 'Chief Offenders' and of course it discussed the Native theme in sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Dream on. If protestors at stadiums increase and sponsors flee its over. The Owners and the Commish will inform Snyder on his new range of options. Did you see the commercial aired during the NBA Finals? Ouch... Protesters won't make sponsors flee, them losing money by associating with the Redskins will. And there aren't nearly enough people bothered by the name to cause that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Protesters won't make sponsors flee, them losing money by associating with the Redskins will. And there aren't nearly enough people bothered by the name to cause that to happen. It's going to take A LOT of sponsors leaving to even make a dent. We could lose FedEx and Snyder wouldn't so much as flinch (but we won't lose FedEx ever). http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ The Redskins are going to have to drop about 29 spots on this list for anything to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Protesters won't make sponsors flee, them losing money by associating with the Redskins will. And there aren't nearly enough people bothered by the name to cause that to happen. We'll have to agree to disagree:-) More "shoes will be dropping" Meanwhile, Go Skins !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 It's going to take A LOT of sponsors leaving to even make a dent. We could lose FedEx and Snyder wouldn't so much as flinch (but we won't lose FedEx ever). http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ The Redskins are going to have to drop about 29 spots on this list for anything to change. Other Owners are affected. Do you think they give a s*&t how successful Snyder is... This now much bigger than Snyder and FedEx... FedEx has declared its "neutrality" according to one ES poster. If so, that 's not exactly an endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 You realize that commercial claims they call themselves Chiefs, but the people going after the Redskins are going after the Chiefs as well. Does that make you wonder, or is that o.k.? I'll do you one better lol... The spokespeople and lead activists for the name change and trademark lawsuit still use the "redskin=scalp" argument as one big reason why the name needs to be changed. However, that argument was never introduced into the lawsuit. You'd think that fact would sway damn near every judge and jury hearing the case. But it's never used in court. One obvious reason you would think it because the Pro Football/Redskins side would be able to introduce evidence to the contrary in court to offset any legal gains the scalping theory may achieve. But here's the most likely reason: Geoffrey Nunberg is the expert linguist for the Anti-Redskins side who gives detailed analysis and explanation why "redskin" should definitely be seen as a racial slur. The Anti-Skins side relies on his expertise to include his opinions in their filings and even have him testify on their behalf in court. Here's what Nunberg said recently in an article he wrote about 'redskin' being a slur: "It was recently discovered that the word actually began its life in English 200 years ago as a translation of an Indian term, via French—it didn’t have anything to do with those stories about bounties for bloody Indian scalps." Yes. Their own expert linguist even says the "redskin=scalp" story is complete and utter bull****. But, and this is the important part, he only said it in an article he wrote. He never said it in court, because the story/theory was never introduced in court by the Anti-Redskins side...because they know the story can be disproved and they don't want it being disproved in a government court by their own expert linguist lol. By not introducing the "scalping origin" theory into any court on any level, they get to keep propagating that myth as "fact" as a strong reason for changing the name. If this were Snyder and the Redskins and their expert linguist was on record--even if just in an article they had written--as saying one of their main points in their side of the debate was not true, we'd hear howls of laughter from the anti-Skins side, along with a lot of Redskins fans on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Other Owners are affected. Do you think they give a s*&t how successful Snyder is... This now much bigger than Snyder and FedEx... FedEx has declared its "neutrality" according to one ES poster. If so, that 's not exactly an endorsement. It has to effect Snyder and the Redskins first before it effects the other owners. Trust me, the "other owners" are FAR more afraid of what will happen financially if the Skins lose their 80 year old brand than what any threat of protesting might do to their wallets. But I get why you feel the way you feel...much like those NAs who claim that hearing the word "redskin" makes them automatically think of their ancestors being "torn limb from limb" for money, you base your beliefs and feelings on all of this not on facts but on perceptions and what feels "right" to you emotionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Other Owners are affected. Do you think they give a s*&t how successful Snyder is... This now much bigger than Snyder and FedEx... FedEx has declared its "neutrality" according to one ES poster. If so, that 's not exactly an endorsement. Kardashian, Fred, the guy that owns FedEx is also part of the Redskins minority ownership group. Chill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Remember the NAs? It's in their hands primarily. If they, and their allies, are only an insignificant group of extremists then there's nothing to worry about... LOLOLL oh my goodnes.. LOLOLOLOLL hahahahaah oh hell,, man, that's rich. lol what a load of crap. It never has been in their hands. If it were, this issue would have been put to bed long long ago. teh entire reason this thread even exists is because they decided to take it out of the hands of their Native buddies and appeal to the Kardashian Kulture. The entire reason most of the newly offended even exist is directly because they took it out of the hands of their people. But thanks for the laugh. seeing real naivete is cute these days. as far as the other owners go... two teams put more money into the collective bargaining coffers than any others. The Redskins and Cowboys. (On the field rivalry is fun. Off the field, Jones and Snyder are two of the most powerful men in the business of sports, and they're pals. One WILL support the other in this regard.) I wonder what happens if Snyder says "You don't support me, then the hell with your collective bargaining" and pulls out? i wonder what happens when Jones says. "I never liked collective bargaining anyway", and joins him? I wonder,, do the owners sit by while such a huge chunk of their money walks out the door? Do teams like Jacksonville, Oakland, Buffalo, Miami, Cincinnatt, roughly a third of the league are blocking off the top half of their stadiums because they can't sell enough tickets,, i wonder what they do when the cash cow stops giving? How long does the league last if it breaks up like that? the thing the NFL has that has given it more strength than any other is it's collective bargaining that insures NO Team will fail. Take out the top giver.. how many can't stay afloat on their own? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-government-decided-that-redskins-bothers-you/2014/06/27/669558a6-fd54-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html The government decided that ‘Redskins’ bothers you Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo who successfully moved a federal agency to withdraw trademark protections from the Washington Redskins because it considers the team’s name derogatory, lives on a reservation where Navajos root for the Red Mesa High School Redskins. She opposes this name; the Native Americans who picked and retain it evidently do not. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted on a 1946 law banning trademarks that “may disparage” persons. “May” gives the agency latitude to disregard evidence regarding how many people actually feel disparaged or feel that others should feel disparaged. Blackhorse speaks of “the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this.” This would seem implausible even if a 2004 poll had not found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins’ name. A 2013 AP-GfK poll showed that 79 percent of Americans of all ethnicities opposed changing it, and just 18 percent of “nonwhite football fans” favored changing it. The federal agency acted in the absence of general or Native American revulsion about “Redskins,” and probably because of this absence. Are the Americans who are paying attention to this controversy comfortable with government saying, in effect, that if people are not offended, they should be, so government must decide what uses of language should be punished? In today’s regulatory state, agencies often do pretty much as they please, exercising discretion unconstrained by law. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that in 2004 the Federal Election Commission held that the anti-George W. Bush movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” did not need to be regulated as an “electioneering communication” but in 2008 held that the hostile “Hillary: The Movie” was such a communication. In the regulatory state, the rule of law is the rule that law barely limits regulators’ discretion. Although the death penalty clearly was not considered a “cruel and unusual” punishment when the Eighth Amendment proscription of such punishments was adopted, perhaps society’s “evolving standards of decency” have brought this punishment under the proscription. Standards of decency do evolve: No sports team launched today would select the name “Redskins.” Although Thomas Sowell is correct that “some people are in the business of being offended, just as Campbell is in the business of making soup,” the fact that some people are professionally indignant does not mean offense may be given promiscuously to others. The name “Redskins” is more problematic than, say, that of the Chicago Blackhawks or Cleveland Indians presumably because “Redskins” refers to skin pigmentation. People offended by this might be similarly distressed if they knew that “Oklahoma” is a compound of two Choctaw words meaning “red” and “people.” Blackhorse, however, has two larger objections. She says “someone” once told her that teams’ mascots “are meant to be ridiculed,” “to be toyed with,” “to be pushed around and disrespected” and “have stuff thrown at them.” She should supplement the opinion of that someone with information from persons more knowledgeable. But she considers “any team name that references Native Americans” an injurious “appropriation of our culture.” Has an “appropriation” been committed by the University of Utah and Florida State University even though they have the approval of the respective tribes for their teams’ nicknames, the Utes and Seminoles? William Voegeli, a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes that the kerfuffle over an NFL team’s name involves serious matters. They include comity in a diverse nation, civil discourse, and “not only how we make decisions, but how we decide what needs to be decided, and who will do the deciding.” Time was, Voegeli writes, a tolerant society was one with “a mutual non-aggression pact”: If your beliefs and practices offend but do not otherwise affect me, I will not interfere with them if you will reciprocate regarding my beliefs and practices. Now, however, tolerance supposedly requires compulsory acknowledgment that certain people’s beliefs and practices deserve, Voegeli says, “to be honored, respected, affirmed and validated” lest they suffer irreparable injury to their sense of worth. And it requires compelling conformity for the good of the compelled. When two Oregon bakers chose, for religious reasons, not to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, an Oregon government official explained why tolerance meant coercing the bakers: “The goal is to rehabilitate.” Tolerance required declaring the bakers’ beliefs and practices intolerable. We are going to discover whether a society can be congenial while its government is being coercive regarding wedding cakes and team names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 One more piece from Nunberg, the Anti-Redskins side's expert linguist. This was written in 2005: ...I served pro bono as the linguistics expert for the seven Indians who brought the petition, and wrote a report documenting the word's long history as an epithet, often a very nasty one. One thing you won't find in that report, though, is a story that you often hear nowadays about where redskin comes from. As a lot of people tell it, the word originally referred not to skin color, but to the bloody Indian scalps that whites paid bounties for. It's true that there's no way to tell for sure, since the origins of the word are lost in the late 17th century. But as best I can tell there's no historical record that connects redskin to the bounties for scalps, and in fact nobody seems to have mentioned the connection until about a dozen years ago. In a way, that story about redskin seems no different from the other tall tales that people pass around about word origins, what the linguist Larry Horn calls "etymythologies." There's the story that posh began as an acronym for "Port Out Starboard Home," the one about how hooker comes from the name of a Civil War general, or the one about how son of a gun originally referred to children born on the gun deck of a ship -- all plausible-sounding, and all wrong. [...]But the story about the origin of redskin is a myth in the deeper sense of the word. It's a story that's meant to illuminate a social truth, as if to say that the history of violence toward Indians is buried in the very words people use to talk about them. You see a lot of stories like that one nowadays, which attribute obscure and malignant origins to words relating to ethnic groups or sexual orientations. [...]But it doesn't really matter where any of these words came from. Since Plato's time, people have thought of words as carrying around their origins like original sin, as if some long-forgotten sense could still have the power to infect their meanings. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/redskin.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick7423 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Former head coach Joe Gibbs defends the Redskins' name http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/06/joe-gibbs-nascar-washington-redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Lots of stuff illustrating how people have had the wool pulled over their eyes and believe a lie because of internet traction Soak it up Kardashian Kulture. they have no respect for your intelligence. In fact they count on you being a dumb ignorant fool, following the stampede in the direction of their choosing. Although,, not really a new tactic. Jump, Junior. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I also heard UnWise Mike is now leading the crusade to force Dick Van Dyke to change his name. Interesting. I've always been offended by vans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Interesting. I've always been offended by vans. And here I thought this was a Dutch joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Facts and reason be damned. Kardashian Kulture is Konvinced, and that is all that is needed. oh, what a wonderful world this will be.. ~Bang Typical 'ride the wave' response, from a failed DJ who can't get 10's of people to listen. Try having an original response that isn't already on Huff/MSNBC and maybe you can double your listeners to 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Typical 'ride the wave' response, from a failed DJ who can't get 10's of people to listen. Try having an original response that isn't already on Huff/MSNBC and maybe you can double your listeners to 4. I'm having trouble figuring out if this post is too complicated, and went over my head, or just so mind-numbingly stupid that it's incoherent. Could you please elaborate, so I can be sure which it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 One more piece from Nunberg, the Anti-Redskins side's expert linguist. This was written in 2005: http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/redskin.html The debate surrounding the origin of the word redskins shouldn't be a debate at all. Only one side is offering any research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 The debate surrounding the origin of the word redskins shouldn't be a debate at all. Only one side is offering any research. Insert reference to Annenberg poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I'm having trouble figuring out if this post is too complicated, and went over my head, or just so mind-numbingly stupid that it's incoherent. Could you please elaborate, so I can be sure which it is? Second option. Just a wordy way of saying "Oh yeah? And another thing." Could have saved time by simply typing that. Could have saved some time off by not saying anything at all or at least attempted to respond with something at least tried to be reasoned response to the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.