Boss_Hogg Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Wow, so the Native American Redskins fans are taking a stand, good for them. I'm waiting for UnWise Mike to pen an attack column in which he portrays all NDN Redskins fans as paid puppets of Dan Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRagone Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I love the first tribe on the list at the bottom that has a representative in NARN is Oenida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I'm not really a fan of the post's content with regards to the team itself, but banning them and other outlets just because they differ on the name seems petty and childish. Simply ignoring them is fine, I would think. Banning them would be a sign of "victory" on "their" side and display of butthurtness on "our" side. I might be willing to yield on all UnWise Mike related content though, that guy is insufferable. Plus he likes Ernie Grunfeld, which is more then enough reason to wish ill on him. You may want to read this thread a bit more in depth and then come to a conclusion instead of assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Can we make up a list people that we need to unfollow? UnWise Mike Washington Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Seems petty to boycott the WP. Just ignore it if you don't like what they're doing, but official boycotts seems extreme. Let the people that want to talk about it talk about the WP talk about it, the ones that don't, can not click in a thread or click out of the thread and go elsewhere. I'm sorry but doing nothing will yield the same. Nothing. Meaning if we do nothing, the Redskins will be forced to change because the people who support it do nothing while the vocal minority continue to gain ground in this battle for public opinion. A boycott is useless if not enough people get involved. But if we all got involved & it actually started to cost them money, then what we are doing is working. How do you hurt someone who requires money to stay in business? You stop giving them money & you influence others to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Can we make up a list people that we need to unfollow? UnWise Mike Washington Post My timeline is much more pleasurable sinc un following UnWise Mike and the rest of the WP clowns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 My timeline is much more pleasurable sinc un following UnWise Mike and the rest of the WP clowns Ha I never followed either..... and when I said unfollow, I should have said boycott. I need names. Who was the TV guy that said Washinton's NFL team, maybe last week vs Baltimore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Native American Redskins Nation Calls for Boycott of Washington Post http://httr4life.com/native-american-redskins-nation-calls-for-boycott-of-washington-post/ Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warskins65 Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Can we make up a list people that we need to unfollow? UnWise Mike Washington Post I think Obermann also falls into this list. He just stated that Snyders wanting a new stadium as the white man making another land grab. Obermann statements are ridiculously stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Been following this for a few days now and it seems that there is a distinction that deserves to be made that is more than just semantics. The initial poll asked about a boycott, and seemingly some opposed it on moral/philosophical grounds, ie. the site making an institutional decision to "punish" the WP for its stance from the top down. I myself voted no early on based upon this very perception. I was wrong, I misunderstood. A genuine grassroots, bottom up decision by the membership itself is something far and away different from what I see argued here. The dynamic is straightforward, clicking on any link directing you to the WP generates ad revenues/ ad pricing, etc., for an organization that has overtly taken a stance contrary to the team and to the individual fans themselves. Kinda hard to argue that is not the case. I don't doubt that some mediots will try (and succeed) in spinning this into another charge against us all, but tbh I couldn't give a **** at gunpoint. I have been making a point of not clicking any of their links for months now, a strictly personal choice that I didn't trumpet for support and backslapping, just my own response to their offerings. Hap just makes this easier for me, where's the downside? If this all has some effect on their readership/subscriptions/ad revenue/whatever, fine, you reap what you sow. But aside from that, if I don't have to reading another stridently overcooked load of tripe supporting the name change agenda disguised as journalism, I'm good, I'm already getting what I want out of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Interesting commercial during the game last night, where the redskinsfacts website has found x % of Native Americans don't mind the name etc. It would seem Robert Lipsyte ESPN can be added to the boycott list. These can be boycotted as well, not that anybody goes those to those lame sites for sports news, or likely otherwise. Slate The New Republic Mother Jones What about Skip Bayless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I think Obermann also falls into this list. He just stated that Snyders wanting a new stadium as the white man making another land grab. Obermann statements are ridiculously stupid. He doesn't help their cause at all. He is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun Kao Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Suggestion for new Easter egg.... "Washington ComPost" LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2006Skins Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Thank you to everyone for the info on this. Especially want to thank the ES staff and extras who work hard to keep us up to date on this info. Keeping this a fan forum is important to me and thousands of other skins fans. This is another example of how and why this is a fan forum as we need to take a stand against those ignorant to the real issues regarding the Redskins name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 The WaPo Redskins fued predates Snyder by a least 2 deacdes. JKC/Gibbs & the WaPo had their battles so it's just not a Snyder WaPo "Redskins name" thing. So yea f the WaPo and boycott all you want. they are free to publish thier agenda driven "opinions" and we're all free to wipe our butts with that papered opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I voted no. It's a matter of free speech, just like keeping the name Redskins. I have received the Post on my doorstep literally my entire life. While there are some writers that I avoid (Wise is right up there, not just because of the name thing, but because he says stupid things about actual sports) I generally like the paper. Besides, my spouse needs her crossword puzzle fix each day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COWBOY-KILLA- Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I say No. Thought you weren't supposed to feed the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSkin Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 There is no boycott. This is people making personal decisions whether they want to take their own stance in this way. A lot of fans on this board are tired of Wise’s columns and his tactics outside of the Post, mainly on twitter. That's coupled with their Redskins coverage, often presented with a splash of ill will and a twist of distaste. The history and traditions involved with the coverage of the team and the Post... it's been sad to witness, but they have been flying out the window for years now. Looky here, I'm going to link to them so I can reference some quotes from Bezos when he bought the Post last year. Warning! Boycotter alert! Warning! I am linking to them. In the boycott thread, even. Be thee warned! http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/jeffrey-bezos-washington-posts-next-owner-aims-for-a-new-golden-era-at-the-newspaper/2013/09/02/30c00b60-13f6-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_story.html Bezos said his major contribution to the business will be in offering his “point of view” in discussions with the paper’s leadership about how the publication should evolve. He also said he provides “runway” — financial support over a lengthy period in which the management can experiment to find a profitable formula for delivering the news. “If we figure out a new golden era at The Post . . . that will be due to the ingenuity and inventiveness and experimentation of the team at The Post,” “You study, you debate, you brainstorm and the answers start to emerge. It takes time. Nothing happens quickly in this mode. You develop theories and hypotheses, but you don’t know if readers will respond. You do as many experiments as rapidly as possible. ‘Quickly’ in my mind would be years.” Asked how he saw The Post — as a local, national or international news organization — Bezos demurred. “That’s a question that needs to be answered in concert with the leadership team of The Post. Is it local? Or national? Is it something new?” Whatever the mission, he said, The Post will have “readers at its centerpiece. I’m skeptical of any mission that has advertisers at its centerpiece. Whatever the mission is, it has news at its heart.” These statements all give me the impression that they were then, and are now, searching for direction in how they want to operate, and succeed, in the future. We all know that the Post is way, way more than a source of Redskins news but regarding Redskins coverage, and given their recent (not so recent really) history of negative bias, it seems like a great time, to me, to send a message as one part of a target audience for the paper Personally, I got sick of being beat over the head with stories about the name, the evil owner, and every single negative aspect about the team that they choose to focus on.. $.02 Loosen up Posty baby! You're too tight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Kinda torn on this stance. It almost looks like we are boycotting something because we find it offensive. Similar to that of the media guys who are boycotting our name because they find it offensive. We get upset when they want to call us the Washington Football Team and we want to change Wise name to Unwise Mike. It can seem rather contradicting. Similar logic to ignore a thread or topic that you do not wish to read, you can ignore a thread or topic that is linked to the WP. If we want to avoid hits on that website, maybe post more of the article rather than a portion which would cause us to have to click the link to read the entire article. Which would further result in website traffic for the WP. I guess, in a nutshell, I am not really against or for the boycott. I'm kind of Jim Zorn Medium on the subject. I certainly do not support being called the Washington Football Team. I'd except being called simply, Washington. If we HAVE to get called something. It's what we are, in any structure of the words "Washington" or "Redskins". However, to add "Football Team" to our name during an actual football game is rather unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Ruckus Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I voted no. It's a matter of free speech, just like keeping the name Redskins. I'm not harping on you personally, Joe, but I wanted to use your response as an example of what I've been seeing a lot of recently. Freedom of speech is not exactly as people are inferring, or believe. Freedom of speech is derived from the 1st Amendment, and protects citizens from the government exacting punishments based on what they say publicly (Within reason. e.g. You can't yell 'Fire' in a theater). It really has nothing to do with the application here with printing the term 'Redskin' or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I voted no. It's a matter of free speech, just like keeping the name Redskins. I have received the Post on my doorstep literally my entire life. While there are some writers that I avoid (Wise is right up there, not just because of the name thing, but because he says stupid things about actual sports) I generally like the paper. Besides, my spouse needs her crossword puzzle fix each day. The First Amendment only protects you from government censure and retribution on free speech. It has nothing to do with citizens on a privately-run message board deciding they do not want to give attention, clicks, or funds to an entity like the (Com)Post that clearly has an agenda against this boards team, the Washington Redskins. No one is stopping you from going to the (Com)Post's website, or anyone else for that matter. Knock yourself out. The majority of us here simply choose to have nothing to do with them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I sent this in a message to the other paper in Washington, hoping it will reach someone who will actually see the truth: These people don't matter though, right UnWise Mike? Real Native Americans telling people like YOU that trying to change the name of a Professional Football team while ignoring the real issues Natives face every day is "kind of an insult" according to Wade Colliflower, Team Redskins Representative of the Chippewa Cree Tribe. http://rare.us/story/what-do-native-americans-really-think-of-the-washington-redskins-name-this-video-may-surprise-harry-reid/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Kev Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I know it's only semantics, but I didn't want a boycott. I'm definately up for just ignoring them although I probably couldn't explain the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Another message with a video sent to the other paper in Washington just now. I'm making them hate me. As they should. Every time I come across a video of information that comes out about NAs telling their side & siding with the Redskins, from now on, I'm sending it to them. They need to be bombarded with this stuff, even if I'm the only one doing it. HAIL. Hey UnWise Mike, another Native American & his tribe & every Native he has spoken to that doesn't count telling people like YOU that HE IS OFFENDED that you would put this much energy into changing something that doesn't matter while crime, poverty, & addiction run rampant on Reservations!!! Open your eyes & see the truth! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cleG4hLuuc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 The First Amendment only protects you from government censure and retribution on free speech. It has nothing to do with citizens on a privately-run message board deciding they do not want to give attention, clicks, or funds to an entity like the (Com)Post that clearly has an agenda against this boards team, the Washington Redskins. No one is stopping you from going to the (Com)Post's website, or anyone else for that matter. Knock yourself out. The majority of us here simply choose to have nothing to do with them anymore. I'm not harping on you personally, Joe, but I wanted to use your response as an example of what I've been seeing a lot of recently. Freedom of speech is not exactly as people are inferring, or believe. Freedom of speech is derived from the 1st Amendment, and protects citizens from the government exacting punishments based on what they say publicly (Within reason. e.g. You can't yell 'Fire' in a theater). It really has nothing to do with the application here with printing the term 'Redskin' or not. You misunderstand me. I was not talking of the right guaranteed under the first amendment (or the 14th, which applies the rights of the 1st to the states in addition to the federal government) I was speaking of the inherent right that we all have to disagree and to speak our piece. Snyder has it, you and I have it, the Post has it. If the editorial page decides that they won't say Redskins, that is their right. I might think it is stupid, as with Boswell's continued use of "washington's football team" rather than use the name in all his columns. (I don't know if he has ever told anyone he was not going to use the name anymore, but he does not.) Let them all have their say, and we will have ours. My belief is that eventually, people will get bored with the topic. Of course, that is just my opinion. In the meantime, I will just continue to sigh and shake my head dismissively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.