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

[Major Harris]

In his world, one person or group should get to decide what is proper and allowable for the rest of us in our country.

We don't see that play out anywhere else.

I do find it interesting how ok it is in this thread to use "liberals" in a disparaging manner without getting cyber jumped. Only in this thread. Lol

[skins2victory]

The results are in..... Chalk another one up for the good side! What a great day!

 

Hail To The Redskins!

[grego]

Frankly, I'm surprised at the results.

For a few tears, now, I've been assuming that the media has successfully changed a lot of people's minds, and the results were different, now. Just at a rough exstimate, I would have bet that the "percent offended" had doubled, since Annenberg, and was now around 20%.

I'd bet it's gone up among non native Americans.

I'm sure that 9-10% offended from annenberg had 99 to 100% of the activist vote.

But I've felt for awhile that the activists weren't speaking for the other 90% of natives.

I'm not sure it's much different than Louis Farakkhan speaking for the

black community, or Fred Phelps speaking for Christians or Anjem Choudary speaking for Muslims.

There just isn't the support for those they claim to represent.

[Larry]

The most compelling argument I have thought of against the name (and it's my own) is that Native Americans are not a homogeneous group which is why so many Native Americans when polled find it non offensive. For some, the name carries no negative history, but actually pride, respect and honor. In that same vein, there may also be groups within the diaspora of Native American peoples that have faced adversity based on the name.

 

Yeah, I've had thoughts on the subject that are similar.

I'm a Native American. (Citizen Potawatomi Nation).

BUT, I'm only 1/16 Native. I don't "look Indian". I've never lived among Natives. No one will ever call me "redskin" as a racial epitaph

I'm absolutely that there are bunches of Natives (for example, on reservations) whose life experience is vastly different from mine. I absolutely cannot claim to represent them or speak for them.

And I could certainly see the argument that their opinion on the subject should count more than mine.

So, just to invent a hypothetical, if there's a survey that says that a large chunk of Natives on reservations think the name is offensive? I'd certainly respect their feelings. (Even over mine).

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, I've had thoughts on the subject that are similar.

I'm a Native American. (Citizen Potawatomi Nation).

BUT, I'm only 1/16 Native. I don't "look Indian". I've never lived among Natives. No one will ever call me "redskin" as a racial epitaph

I'm absolutely that there are bunches of Natives (for example, on reservations) whose life experience is vastly different from mine. I absolutely cannot claim to represent them or speak for them.

And I could certainly see the argument that their opinion on the subject should count more than mine.

So, just to invent a hypothetical, if there's a survey that says that a large chunk of Natives on reservations think the name is offensive? I'd certainly respect their feelings. (Even over mine).

 

You Redskin.  

 

 

[goskins10]

This should not surprise you. The accusations of bias (in the mainstream media) is largely propaganda. The fabrications and falsehoods come from those making the complaints usually.

 

The slant can be seen in story selection and sensationalism, but most reporters and editors do care for truth at least in traditional journalism. If we want this poll to open eyes... I hope some on the right take a second look at the press. For all their faults, they are by and large honest and care about their work. That is, unless you work for FOX or MSNBC, but cable TV news is often much more about analysis and opinion than reporting.

 

Okay, stepping off soap box.

 

 

Sorry, but I could not disagree more. The instantaneous nature of today's media has created an atmosphere of report now, confirm later. Let's throw as much mud on the wall and see what sticks. In years past reporters would take the time to confirm facts before reporting. They don't necessarily print bold ass lies. But they take partial truths, make their own conclusions and hope they are right, And when they are not, they double down and try to convince people they are right, regardless of the facts.

 

So, yes I will give them their due. They did the right thing here. They will probably convince themselves eventually that it was a mistake. But for right now, they have done the right thing.

 

But please do not tell me not to be surprised. I have been reading the Washington Post for well over 40 years (along with following many other media outlets). And they have changed, and for the worse. They care very little about honor and integrity or truth in reporting any more. They have convinced themselves that they need to educate an ignorant public, much like the other supposed news agencies you mentioned. They are all pretty much like TMZ, Fox and MSNBC. Convinced they are smarter than the people they report to and willing to forego fact checking if it does not fit their agenda.

 

It's not entirely their fault. There are many in the public that eats up drama and controversy as it makes them feel better about their own lives. But the media has a responsibility that I believe they largely ignore. I have a mountain of data to support my position just on the Washington Redskins if you would like to take this off-line so as not to derail the thread (not like asking you outside for a fight  , suggesting we have an, honest, respectful, offline discussion).

 

Again, for today, I will give them their due. Good for them for reporting the poll even though it does not support their point of view. But once a decade is not a trend. So yes, I am very surprised and will remain so until it becomes a habit.

 

Ok, rant over.... 

[SkinsGuy]

We don't see that play out anywhere else.

I do find it interesting how ok it is in this thread to use "liberals" in a disparaging manner without getting cyber jumped. Only in this thread. Lol

 

I originally had the word "liberal" in my post (as in "liberal PC trash ), but I took it out.

 

Mainly because most all know that these pushy, elitist PC trash urchins are liberals. I have yet to really see anyone who deems themselves as "conservative" come out against the name or push PC nonsense.

 

I took it out though, because I didn't want it to sound like I was speaking about ALL liberals. Most, I think, are just as annoyed by this PC tripe as anyone. It's only a small percentage of them pushing this stuff.

[grhqofb5]

 

 

The fact that the Post, a liberal rag, came out with the story is just even better.  The cherry on top for me is that NAs who classify themselves as liberal don't care, either.

 

 

I suspect that the Washington Post, liberal rag, decided to have this poll conducted because it strongly believed that the result would show a drastic trend toward "offense" among the only relevant demographic.  Even a slight trend away from the Annenberg results would have vindicated the "name change" crowd. Once the actual results were returned, the Post realized they couldn't bury it, so they actually did the right thing--  published it as front page news.

[grego]

Mainly because most all know that these pushy, elitist PC trash urchins are liberals. I have yet to really see anyone who deems themselves as "conservative" come out against the name or push PC nonsense.

Krauthammmer might be the closest thing to that.

[Commander PK]

I suspect that the Washington Post, liberal rag, decided to have this poll conducted because it strongly believed that the result would show a drastic trend toward "offense" among the only relevant demographic.

and/or to stoke the fires of a debate that has steadily been dying off since its peak in 2013. For today it did...if only for today.

[Larry]

and/or to stoke the fires of a debate that has steadily been dying off since its peak in 2013. For today it did...if only for today.

Or to get clicks.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I suspect that the Washington Post, liberal rag, decided to have this poll conducted because it strongly believed that the result would show a drastic trend toward "offense" among the only relevant demographic.  Even a slight trend away from the Annenberg results would have vindicated the "name change" crowd. Once the actual results were returned, the Post realized they couldn't bury it, so they actually did the right thing--  published it as front page news.

 

Yes, I agree.  Glad they did the right thing and published it.  Maybe honest journalism and reporting still exists.

 

However, it's my suspicion that they'll now work even harder to come out with three or four more articles that'll talk about the few NA's that don't like the name, perhaps polling a different set of Native Americans until they get their desired answers...etc.  Like a kid who doesn't get the right answer from his mom, he goes and asks his dad in hopes for a different answer.  

[Supreme Wu]

This is fun, PTI (Kornheiser and wilbon) react to the poll, skip to 6 minutes in

 

[Commander PK]

Wow...credit to them both especially Wilbon.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow...credit to them both especially Wilbon.

 

Exactly.  It's so hard for others to do the same, it's sad.  

[Major Harris]

I'm actually surprised they didn't double down. Hats off

[Jumbo]

I do find it interesting how ok it is in this thread to use "liberals" in a disparaging manner without getting cyber jumped. Only in this thread. Lol

 

  i suppose this is another of your God-hating libtard PC-freak whines, isn't it, nancy?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Did Kornhowswhatever say that this poll has made him "take a step back" from his Change-the-name stance?

[DC9]

Wow... I fully expected spin there from Tony and Wilbon

[SkinsGuy]

Did Kornhowswhatever say that this poll has made him "take a step back" from his Change-the-name stance?

 

Actually, I think Wilbon said that.

[Larry]

So, they've decided to reverse their positions, after seeing information that's been in front of their faces for 10 years?

[grhqofb5]

Or to get clicks.

I agree. The one thing both liberal and conservative publications value over all else is money. Presented with sticking to their political positions vs. avoiding financial ruin, they'll take the money.

[@DCGoldPants]

As others have said, no doubt other polls have been tried by pre-game changer folks. But the results weren't released because they probably looked like this.

If the WaPo didn't want this out. They could have sat on it easily. They opted to put it out there. Props to them.

[grhqofb5]

Yes, I agree. Glad they did the right thing and published it. Maybe honest journalism and reporting still exists.

However, it's my suspicion that they'll now work even harder to come out with three or four more articles that'll talk about the few NA's that don't like the name, perhaps polling a different set of Native Americans until they get their desired answers...etc. Like a kid who doesn't get the right answer from his mom, he goes and asks his dad in hopes for a different answer.

Here's the beauty of properly designed and conducted surveys-- the results accurately reflect opinion. If another survey is conducted in the next couple years with the same questions, the result should be the same (unless it's not done properly, or there could be an argument that this survey's methodology had some flaw).

I notice in ESPNs article reporting the result of the Wash. Post poll, ESPN kept referring to their own pollfrom a couple years ago. Problem with that one was obvious. Its poll included all Americans not just NAs. Also referenced some BS poll of NFL players. This is the type of **** ibecpect to see in the few days in an effort to minimize the significance of the Wash Post survey.

[Major Harris]

i suppose this is another of your God-hating libtard PC-freak whines, isn't it, nancy?

Y don't u concentrate on being an effective mod and let me be me