I can't help but shake my head as I read into your thought process with your litany of clueless posts. There was a time when 10-20% of the population tried to convince the nation to end slavery. How DARE they try to convince the majority population that they should change their minds??? >>
Now you're trying to associate the use of a term that over 80% of the people feel is just fine with SLAVERY.
Are you serious, or are you having a few too many today ?
What will you be equating the term Redskin to next ? Torture ? Rape ?
You are funny to read though. I'm laughing every time I read what you write, so please keep entertaining me.
I don't think the select few on this board will change their minds on the topic...they are set in their ways. I will say that it has been a privilege watching some of the smartest people on this board tackle this subject, and I am referring to Grote, boopotts, Baseball, and Wrestlingcardking. They have intelligence, common sense, wisdom....and they articulate their points VERY well. The rest of us are merely fans
Baseball, as pointed out, there is some questionable decency to be sad about in this thread. But if there is one thing to be happy about, it is the fact that Edmundfitzgerald has finally moved off that ridiculous notion, based off that ridiculous study, that only 9% of Native Americans are offended. Now that bar has moved to 20% for him.
Like Boopotts said way earlier on in another thread(and Baseball also reiterated), at what percent will it take for these people to change their minds? 25%, 40%? And, at 20%, it is kind of sad that they would just completely disregard that amount of people.
My guess, is if that percent moved to a higher mark, that instead of changing their minds, they will abandon that point altogther
Skin2. I live in Arizona and visit the local Native American casinos here occasionally. I really doubt that any of them care what the damn Football team in DC is called.
I don't think the select few on this board will change their minds on the topic...they are set in their ways. I will say that it has been a privilege watching some of the smartest people on this board tackle this subject, and I am referring to Grote, boopotts, Baseball, and Wrestlingcardking. They have intelligence, common sense, wisdom....and they articulate their points VERY well. The rest of us are merely fans
Baseball, as pointed out, there is some questionable decency to be sad about in this thread. But if there is one thing to be happy about, it is the fact that Edmundfitzgerald has finally moved off that ridiculous notion, based off that ridiculous study, that only 9% of Native Americans are offended. Now that bar has moved to 20% for him.
Like Boopotts said way earlier on in another thread(and Baseball also reiterated), at what percent will it take for these people to change their minds? 25%, 40%? And, at 20%, it is kind of sad that they would just completely disregard that amount of people.
My guess, is if that percent moved to a higher mark, that instead of changing their minds, they will abandon that point altogther >>
It's the Internet, Skin- you can't change you mind. If you do, you get kicked off.
As for this Redskins nonsense, the bottom line (from my perspective) is that we have a major sports team in our nation's capital that chooses to use a racial slur as its nickname. That, in a word, is just tacky- and that tackiness holds regardless of how many Native Americans are actually offended by the term. Like a lot of folks, I'd like to see it changed for that reason; not because the world will stop spinning if it isn't, or because I believe that every year 1000's of Native Americans jump off bridges,unable to live with the pain and humiliation they feel when they think of this nickname, but simply because it's an embarrassing nickname. And either guys get that or they don't. It's like wearing a hat to a formal dinner, or putting your feet up on your host's coffee table: It's possible that nobody's offended by it, but it's still poor form.
When Wrestlingcardking put the full blown cartoon visual up there associating American Indians with other races, I figured that even the most staunch defenders of bigotry would at least stop and pause for a moment to see the connection...but apparently there are about six blind mice instead of three
When you asked, have any of the defenders ever actually stated what percent of 'offended' people it will take to cause them to change their stance?
At least the one guy has changed hanging onto that ridiculous 9% study like it was written in stone or something. Now he is up to 20%. Soon that will climb. Then once it does, the defenders will abandon the point altogether. In the meantime, they walk around actually feeling good that 20% of a race(which already have other issues going against them) is also being humiliated by the issue of being somebody's pet. Nice guys.
I dare any of the defenders of the use of the racist term 'Redskin' to go up to any race of people, and call them by the color of their skin. I love to see the results of you going up and calling a group 'blackskins' or 'yellowskins' or 'redskins'. You wouldn't do it, would you? And since you wouldn't, then why in god's name are you so vehemently fighting the changing of the term to identify the football team in Washington?
Are you that put off by socially conscious folks who want to see progressive change happen in this country? Has your media outlet of choice so indoctrinated you that they have you believing changing this football team's name is an attack on capitalism and should be fought at every turn? Or are you really a racist at heart and is using this controversy to out your hatred of other races?
For all the fury and bluster the defenders of this team name have, I have YET to see a single post explaining why they are so adamant in their desire to see the continued use of it.
Fitz, you're the worst offender in this thread BY A MILE. First it was 'only' 9% of Native Americans who were offended, and that wasn't enough to make you change your mind. Now you've found another study in which 'only' 20% are offended, yet you still are resolute in your desire to see the continued use of this racist team name. Even when proof is given (repeatedly!) that has thousands of Native American tribes standing up in protest, you REFUSE to concede and admit that they should change the name. Either you're a racist, or you're completely ignorant. Either way, you, sir, are WRONG.
We have a select group of people in America that are offended by our pledge of allegiance. We even had a court in San Francisco rule in their favor, but it was eventually overturned.
This large group of Americans are offended that One Nation Under God is in our pledge.
I'm asking you if you believe in this cause, that is, that America should drop "One Nation under God" from the pledge because of how it offends many Americans.
It doesn't matter if it's 50%, 20%, 10%, or 1%, because according to your logic, if it even offends just a few people, it should be changed.
Or should America stand firm on the courts position that if you are offended, than you don't have to recite it ?
BTW, this issue is so serious with these people that they actually had their case heard in the highest court in San Francisco. This is not a frivolous case whatsoever, and many Americans were behind this movement.
I wonder how baseball felt when he saw all those Senators stand in Washington and recite the Pledge of Allegience after the court ruling. I wonder if he felt like the Senators were mocking the offended, because obviously they shared no sympathy for them by reciting the pledge.
Perhaps by executive order, the president could just drop all of the professional team names and assign each a number. On Sunday #31 would travel to #517's home field for a night game. Of course #13 and #666 would have to be skipped to avoid any hurt feelings.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate.
<< <i>Perhaps by executive order, the president could just drop all of the professional team names and assign each a number. On Sunday #31 would travel to #517's home field for a night game. Of course #13 and #666 would have to be skipped to avoid any hurt feelings.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate. >>
Your weak attempt at trivializing the matter or adding humor...simply did not work. Sorry.
I learned something new...didn't know numbers had feelings or thoughts...or were a conquered group of people.
Not even sure why I responded to this quote...it is ignorant in every way imaginable.
We have a select group of people in America that are offended by our pledge of allegiance. We even had a court in San Francisco rule in their favor, but it was eventually overturned.
This large group of Americans are offended that One Nation Under God is in our pledge.
I'm asking you if you believe in this cause, that is, that America should drop "One Nation under God" from the pledge because of how it offends many Americans.
It doesn't matter if it's 50%, 20%, 10%, or 1%, because according to your logic, if it even offends just a few people, it should be changed.
Or should America stand firm on the courts position that if you are offended, than you don't have to recite it ? >>
Completely different topic. Are those people who are suing, a conquered race that have had their people exterminated and their lands taken, and then further trivialized by then becoming a mascot and pet for a mere sports teams that use racist terms and/or demeaning caricatures of them?
Personally, I haven't put a lot of thought into, or looked at, that dilemma. I won't comment on it until I look into it more, sort, and formulate my thoughts on the matter.
As a side note, why should anybody answer your questions, when you have dodged questions that were actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. Everyone answers your questions(no matter how far off the point they are), yet you dodge the pertinent question because you know the answers will contradict foolish points you have made throughout.
Also, in your point of majority, even if 100% of American Indians were on board, they would still be such a smaller percentage of the population, that their voice of opinion would always be dwarfed by the majority...so in your world, the majority can do whatever they want to a minority group.
I'm still waiting for you to answer, at what percent of 'offended' Native Americans do you then change your stance? Currently you have it at 20%, but still laugh and champion about those 20% being humiliated for being somebody's pet.
Also, you have gone on record saying naming or referring to people based on skin color is not a problem at all.
I answered your silly Frank Sinatra Blue eyes example.
Would you start a youth team and name it redskins, yellowskins, or blackskins? It is a simple question and answer. I have answered all your questions. Stop being vague and hiding.
<< <i>Perhaps by executive order, the president could just drop all of the professional team names and assign each a number. On Sunday #31 would travel to #517's home field for a night game. Of course #13 and #666 would have to be skipped to avoid any hurt feelings.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate. >>
Your weak attempt at trivializing the matter or adding humor...simply did not work. Sorry.
I learned something new...didn't know numbers had feelings or thoughts...or were a conquered group of people.
Not even sure why I responded to this quote...it is ignorant in every way imaginable. >>
Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack.
<< <i>Perhaps by executive order, the president could just drop all of the professional team names and assign each a number. On Sunday #31 would travel to #517's home field for a night game. Of course #13 and #666 would have to be skipped to avoid any hurt feelings.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate. >>
Your weak attempt at trivializing the matter or adding humor...simply did not work. Sorry.
I learned something new...didn't know numbers had feelings or thoughts...or were a conquered group of people.
Not even sure why I responded to this quote...it is ignorant in every way imaginable. >>
Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack. >>
If that is a typical response you get, then it is probably a sign that you should probably find a more rationale approach that actually makes sense...because you failed miserably in your attempt.
You are talking about numbers having hurt feelings and comparing it to the topic on hand. It is just stupid. It is dumb in any language, context, race, country. Anywhere.
<< <i> Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack. >>
Thank you for proving my initial assertion that the only people still fighting for the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team is having their media of choice telling them it's an attack on capitalism and their personal liberty. When you resort to ad hominem attacks that aren't based on anything resembling the initial topic, then you, my friend, have lost the fight.
As far as the pledge of allegiance topic, again, another off topic talking point from the biggest proponent of perpetuating the use of this redskin term isn't surprising. Time and again he finds a way to make himself look even more foolish and completely incompetent when it comes to debate.
I will ask fitz, glicker, and the others AGAIN why are you fighting so hard for the continued use of the term 'Redskin' to identify a football team? I ask would you, in your every day lives, identify any group of people by the color of their skin (i.e. 'yellowskins' or 'blackskins') and if not, why not? Afraid of the (deserved) beating you would endure as a result? What are you fighting for in this debate? If the team name were changed tomorrow to Red Storm (to copy the St. Johns example) how would your life be affected? Is it because those mythical 'PC Police' and those 'liberals' got their way and you can't have that?
The very facts that the proponents for the use of the term (a) can't (or won't) state why they are such a proponent of the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team, and (b) refuse to stay on topic and continue to bring up completely unrelated topics is proof positive that these folks are simply lining up behind their media's point of view that changing the team name is bad because it lets 'them' win (whoever they are is irrelevant, they have to toe the company line).
I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why?
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i> We have a select group of people in America that are offended by our pledge of allegiance. We even had a court in San Francisco rule in their favor, but it was eventually overturned. >>
Not that is has ANY relevance to the topic at hand (big surprise, it coming from you), but the words 'under god' were only added long AFTER the original pledge was introduced, and only done during the Red Scare of the 50s. It has NO place in a pledge to America, and should be removed immediately. It offends and alienates segments of the population who either don't believe in a god or don't believe in the Christian god.
<< <i>This large group of Americans are offended that One Nation Under God is in our pledge.
I'm asking you if you believe in this cause, that is, that America should drop "One Nation under God" from the pledge because of how it offends many Americans.
It doesn't matter if it's 50%, 20%, 10%, or 1%, because according to your logic, if it even offends just a few people, it should be changed. >>
It has NOTHING to do with offending people but EVERYTHING to do with it not belonging there in the first place. It was originally composed in 1892 and went "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." NO MENTION of 'under god' and it should be expunged and taken back to its original composition immediately, not because it offends anyone but because it's not the original pledge!
Game over, little man, you lose again. Now back to the original topic.
Or should America stand firm on the courts position that if you are offended, than you don't have to recite it ? >>
One nation under God has been opposed by offended atheists throughout our country in different states like California and Massachusettes. It has everything to do with offending atheists, who don't believe in God.
This will be the last time I respond to your lies, because not only are you a hypocrite for having Washington Redskins football cards under your roof, but you call people offensive names while you fight to have a name you feel is offensive removed.
Perhaps you should take some time supporting people who are offended by people who get offended.
There is a large part of society that gets offended when they hear stories about the 1-10% of the population that cry and whine about every little thing. No, not slavery, or rape, or the N word, but about things that only 1-10% of the population care about. Perhaps you should champion the cause of the 90% who get offended by the 1-10% who always try to cry as loud as they can about what the majority see as trivial.
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
I wanted to quote this because THIS is the issue. All those other comparisons people try to equate with it, simply don't compare.
This example, and Wrestlingcardking's cartoon montage example, highlight it perfectly.
Wrestlingcardking, your two posts in the entire thread have silenced them, because they know there is no argument to debunk it...as any argument they try can only lead to them admitting they are either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong...none of which people like to admit to. That is why they won't answer certain questions, and your two key posts.
Fitz has realized his preference for racist team names has no defense so he retreats behind arguments that have no relationship to the debate. Others who have argued for the continued use of the racist term have YET to post anything resembling a coherent reason why. It's telling that of all the posts they have made on the topic not one person favoring the use of the term can post why they favor this tack.
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
I wanted to quote this because THIS is the issue. All those other comparisons people try to equate with it, simply don't compare.
This example, and Wrestlingcardking's cartoon montage example, highlight it perfectly.
Wrestlingcardking, your two posts in the entire thread have silenced them, because they know there is no argument to debunk it...as any argument they try can only lead to them admitting they are either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong...none of which people like to admit to. That is why they won't answer certain questions, and your two key posts. >>
If it's all inclusive (ie regardless of sport: every team name, mascot, cheer), I'll support your decision 100%. Again, I strongly recommend boycotting because that's the best way to get a private company's attention. Making a personal sacrifice, taking a pledge not to financially support, and actually doing something other than talking in circles on a sports card forum.
Actions speak louder than words.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
I wanted to quote this because THIS is the issue. All those other comparisons people try to equate with it, simply don't compare.
This example, and Wrestlingcardking's cartoon montage example, highlight it perfectly.
Wrestlingcardking, your two posts in the entire thread have silenced them, because they know there is no argument to debunk it...as any argument they try can only lead to them admitting they are either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong...none of which people like to admit to. That is why they won't answer certain questions, and your two key posts. >>
If it's all inclusive (ie regardless of sport: every team name, mascot, cheer), I'll support your decision 100%. Again, I strongly recommend boycotting because that's the best way to get a private company's attention. Making a personal sacrifice, taking a pledge not to financially support, and actually doing something other than talking in circles on a sports card forum.
Actions speak louder than words.
>>
While I am at it, I will go ahead and solve the Middle East problem too.
Maybe it starts somewhere, and talk is where it usually starts. Life isn't easy. Changing society isn't easy. Changing a mere sports team name and using a race as a mascot is easy to change
Nice way to deflect and avoid answering to those two posts, since you have stated you are a defender
<< <i>Maybe it starts somewhere, and talk is where it usually starts. Life isn't easy. Changing society isn't easy. Changing a mere sports team name and using a race as a mascot is easy to change
Nice way to deflect and avoid answering to those two posts, since you have stated you are a defender >>
Of course he (and others like him) deflect, avoid, and spin to try to answer, because any of the reasons for defending the continued use of this racist term are all unsavory;
(1) they're racists (I think this is by far the least likely possibility, but it is one); (2) they think Native Americans aren't deserving of the respect needed to change the team name (again, less likely); (3) they think fighting anything the supposed 'PC Police' fight for has to be wrong so they will in turn fight back; (4) they truly are ignorant enough to think using a race of people as mascots for a sports franchise isn't wrong.
That's it. That's the list of possibilities. I can't think of any other possible reason for the vehement defense of the continued use of 'Redskin' to name a sports team, and, they are all terrible reasons for fighting the inevitable name change.
<< <i>While I am at it, I will go ahead and solve the Middle East problem too.
Maybe it starts somewhere, and talk is where it usually starts. Life isn't easy. Changing society isn't easy. Changing a mere sports team name and using a race as a mascot is easy to change
Nice way to deflect and avoid answering to those two posts, since you have stated you are a defender >>
See, that's the problem. The attitude is you're either with us or against us. I'm neither. I understand why some see Native American portrayals can be offensive but due to personal experiences, understand why others see it as pride an honor. What I do completely disagree with is the tactic of telling one private company to change their name with shame and name calling. If it was a public company or government entity, you would have my full support but it's not.
Change is hard, there's no doubt about it. However, boycotting a non-essential activity is *really* easy. It's not like your committing to a hunger strike that puts your health and life in jeopardy. Rather than buy a pack of cards or licensed shirt, send the money to a tribe of your choosing. Instead of sitting on the couch and watching the games, do *anything* but that.
It really is just that easy, skin.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Of course I could do more, we all can. Many of those things are on a scale of easy/hard. However, the name change, is the easiest, and can have a BIG impact on the whole issue...especially coming from a team in such a high profile league. In fact, if Dan Snyder says he is honoring them, then HE should show it by changing the name, because it IS offensive. If he doesn't change it, then he is lying or ignorant on what honoring them is!
As for private/public company...that isn't the topic. Obviously, private companies are free to do what they wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it is offensive, and THAT is the argument. Wrestlingcardkings's posts are the argument.
However, there are people on here trumpeting the use of it and showing glee in doing so, for reasons laid out by1985fan. You aren't one of them. However, there still is NOT a good answer to WrestlingcardKing's post and questions. Reason why, is because there are none that would make sense. Any answer against it makes one either a hypocrite, a bigot, or just wrong.
PS, if all my contribution to the cause is simply giving them the respect they deserve, and not some type of monetary contribution or boycott organizer, that puts me ahead of a whole lot of people(as evidenced by this board). Is it enough? I have no idea if it is. I'm just a regular dude who likes to have fun, and enjoy the company of family and friends.
Of course I could do more, we all can. Many of those things are on a scale of easy/hard. However, the name change, is the easiest, and can have a BIG impact on the whole issue...especially coming from a team in such a high profile league. In fact, if Dan Snyder says he is honoring them, then HE should show it by changing the name, because it IS offensive. If he doesn't change it, then he is lying or ignorant on what honoring them is!
As for private/public company...that isn't the topic. Obviously, private companies are free to do what they wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it is offensive, and THAT is the argument. Wrestlingcardkings's posts are the argument.
However, there are people on here trumpeting the use of it and showing glee in doing so, for reasons laid out by1985fan. You aren't one of them. However, there still is NOT a good answer to WrestlingcardKing's post and questions. Reason why, is because there are none that would make sense. Any answer against it makes one either a hypocrite, a bigot, or just wrong.
PS, if all my contribution to the cause is simply giving them the respect they deserve, and not some type of monetary contribution or boycott organizer, that puts me ahead of a whole lot of people(as evidenced by this board). Is it enough? I have no idea if it is. I'm just a regular dude who likes to have fun, and enjoy the company of family and friends. >>
So removing all Native American references out of sports is now the topic? I've already said I'm okay with that but the previous thread specifically targeted the 'Washington Redskins'. You may not agree with it but changing a team's name does come down to the entity. Public companies have to answer shareholders and government has taxpayers, but private companies only have to answer themselves. No amount of keyboard shaming will change Snider's mind; only actions and hitting his pocketbook can do that.
As for contributions, showing respect is just as good as a donation. I was simply providing an alternative to consciously putting money in Dan's wallet, which is a double standard and hypocritical.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I agree changing the team's name comes down to the team itself. I don't think ANYBODY disagrees with that. That point can be checked off and moved on.
The major thing being discussed is whether or not it is proper/not proper, offensive/not offensive, to use that name(or other terms, mascots). Some are basically laughing at, and mocking the idea, that it is offensive, and that is what myself, Boo, Baseball, WestlingCardKing, etc... are debating.
Back on point. I have to reiterate that those questions laid out above still stand to those who do not see the offensiveness of the use of the names/terms.
I think it is easy to guess that I am not a fan of Indian mascots period and the eliminations of a slur that has had historical negative connotations to it (Redskins) is just the first domino to fall. The NCAA has taken some steps to assist with the mascot issues for colleges.
BUYING Frank Gotch T229 Kopec Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i> Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack. >>
Thank you for proving my initial assertion that the only people still fighting for the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team is having their media of choice telling them it's an attack on capitalism and their personal liberty. When you resort to ad hominem attacks that aren't based on anything resembling the initial topic, then you, my friend, have lost the fight.
As far as the pledge of allegiance topic, again, another off topic talking point from the biggest proponent of perpetuating the use of this redskin term isn't surprising. Time and again he finds a way to make himself look even more foolish and completely incompetent when it comes to debate.
I will ask fitz, glicker, and the others AGAIN why are you fighting so hard for the continued use of the term 'Redskin' to identify a football team? I ask would you, in your every day lives, identify any group of people by the color of their skin (i.e. 'yellowskins' or 'blackskins') and if not, why not? Afraid of the (deserved) beating you would endure as a result? What are you fighting for in this debate? If the team name were changed tomorrow to Red Storm (to copy the St. Johns example) how would your life be affected? Is it because those mythical 'PC Police' and those 'liberals' got their way and you can't have that?
The very facts that the proponents for the use of the term (a) can't (or won't) state why they are such a proponent of the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team, and (b) refuse to stay on topic and continue to bring up completely unrelated topics is proof positive that these folks are simply lining up behind their media's point of view that changing the team name is bad because it lets 'them' win (whoever they are is irrelevant, they have to toe the company line). >>
First off, my media of choice is CNN, I watch Fox as well and if my stomach is not already upset, a bit of MSNBC just to see where the other side is on an issue. When at my computer, I usually have NPR on the radio as it is now. It is only non subscriber station that gives any real news coverage.
Second, I don't give a rats tuchas what the name of the Washington team is. Major league teams are typically owned by a bunch of drooling Billionaires that suck dry the communities that feverishly support their product by hosing the taxpayers for new stadiums and improvements.
Problem is, the name and therefore brand has been in place for what, 80 years. We are in a new and dangerous era of sappy left wingers deciding what is best for everyone else. We end up with an obese first lady dictating school lunch policy and a cigarette smoking ex crack user setting healthcare policy for 300,000,000 Americans.
Snyder can damn well do what he wants with the team. He paid for it. If enough folks are offended by the name and quit buying season tickets he may want to reconsider. That is his business, not mine.
Today Redskin's is unacceptable, tomorrow the White Sox (that could be considered exclusionary you know) Next the thoughtless police will consider the name of my business derogatory, your business will be next.
Yeah, I am a product of the 1960's and 70's. You guys think that we are dinosaurs, so be it. We grew up in the shadow of WWII and our parents fought to defend the freedoms that our Constitutions guarantee us. A close family friend lost a foot to the Nazis when he was interred by the vermin in a concentration camp.
You fools think that all of that should be forgotten as it is now 2013 and the logic of an elite administration and his brain stifled followers reign supreme. Well you are wrong, a few of us are still around and until we are gone, we will challenge the stupidity and nation destroying corruption that pervades every crevice of society.
Using 'that is how it's been for years' is an abysmal excuse for excusing racism. 'That's how it's been for years!' was the reasoning against ending slavery, for ending th e ban on interracial marriage, for excluding gay marriage...the li is seemingly endless. Just because things have been a certain way for decades doesn't exclude them from being wrong and wanting the changed.
The term 'redskin' is racist and needs to be changed no matter what the willfully ignorant dinosaurs say.
<< <i>Using 'that is how it's been for years' is an abysmal excuse for excusing racism. 'That's how it's been for years!' was the reasoning against ending slavery, for ending th e ban on interracial marriage, for excluding gay marriage...the li is seemingly endless. Just because things have been a certain way for decades doesn't exclude them from being wrong and wanting the changed.
The term 'redskin' is racist and needs to be changed no matter what the willfully ignorant dinosaurs say. >>
You are comparing the name of a football team to slavery? I know that this thread is 161 posts long, but you should have a more logical defense left in your quiver. What other draconian laws of the T Rex's need to be changed? Let me guess, the 2nd amendment needs to be tossed and anyone who jumped the fence to live is this country should now be a US citizen with a new Porsche and a home on the beach.
What else is your teleprompter telling you to recite?
Snyder can damn well do what he wants with the team. He paid for it. If enough folks are offended by the name and quit buying season tickets he may want to reconsider. That is his business, not mine.
. >>
And if people are really offended by Chick-Fil-A's stand on marriage, than don't buy their product. If enough people are offended, than they'll go out of business.
A business (Wasington Redskins) has the freedom to choose any brand name they want for their product. They obviously are making millions of dollars off that brand name, so obviously enough people aren't offended by it. This is a privately held company. They can do what they want, no matter who is offended by a name that really isn't even offensive to over 80% of the population.
Everyone who is offended by the Redskin name can just stop supporting the NFL. But will they ??? NO ! Why won't they ? Because they have no convictions about what they spout on the internet. Like I've said before, 1985fan continues to have his Redskins cards in his collection. Absolutely no conviction whatsoever. Just a lot of blah,blah,blah over the internet.
God bless America. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
My only teleprompter is my conscience, sir. I'm sorry you are unable to differentiate this topic from the many you continue to bring up as they are unrelated, but it seems apparent you feed on talking points.
If you are unable to see the term redskin as offensive then nothing I or anyone can as will change your mind. It's sad, really, that one segment of th population has made the term 'progressive' a negative one.
A business (Wasington Redskins) has the freedom to choose any brand name they want for their product. >>
So you'd have no problem whatsoever for a team to move to LA and name themselves the 'Brownskins'? Or 'Yellowskins'?
<< <i> They obviously are making millions of dollars off that brand name, so obviously enough people aren't offended by it. This is a privately held company. They can do what they want, no matter who is offended by a name that really isn't even offensive to over 80% of the population. >>
Why do you continue to spout these numbers as if they have some relevance to the discussion? Why are you so against the name change? Why are you fighting so fiercely against changing a team name that is a racial slur?
<< <i>Everyone who is offended by the Redskin name can just stop supporting the NFL. But will they ??? NO ! Why won't they ? Because they have no convictions about what they spout on the internet. Like I've said before, 1985fan continues to have his Redskins cards in his collection. Absolutely no conviction whatsoever. Just a lot of blah,blah,blah over the internet. >>
And some people can continue to prove, time and time again, how racist their views really are.
<< <i>My only teleprompter is my conscience, sir. I'm sorry you are unable to differentiate this topic from the many you continue to bring up as they are unrelated, but it seems apparent you feed on talking points.
If you are unable to see the term redskin as offensive then nothing I or anyone can as will change your mind. It's sad, really, that one segment of th population has made the term 'progressive' a negative one. >>
Sorry for getting caught up in the truculence. We can disagree and remain civil.
Please clarify your ideas for changing the name. I have not read all 165 of the posts, so may have missed it. Snyder is the team owner and has so far resisted calls for a change. Beyond that, what do you propose? A boycott. Ok, we have a fine American Tradition for that. Protests and letters-emails-texts to the team management? No problem as long as no laws are violated.
Here is where it may get dicey. Are you proposing a court or congressional or executive action to force a name change? That would of course set a dangerous precedent as to which names are ok and which are in violation. I never liked the name Hebrew National for a hot dog, but I respect the name that the owners have used for many years. Should everything be on the table that offends and who is the decision maker in this brave new world?
<< <i> Please clarify your ideas for changing the name. I have not read all 165 of the posts, so may have missed it. Snyder is the team owner and has so far resisted calls for a change. Beyond that, what do you propose? A boycott. Ok, we have a fine American Tradition for that. Protests and letters-emails-texts to the team management? No problem as long as no laws are violated. >>
What I would love to know is why people are willing to dismiss the offensiveness of a mascot and team name which completely marginalizes a race of people. It doesn't matter that the term has been used for decades - other things which have been deemed demeaning to other races ('blackface' comes to mind immediately) have been excised out of popular culture (and rightfully so), why are some people so beholden to this particular team? I have yet to see a fan of the team chime in on this, which is peculiar that so many people are so against the change without having a single vested interest in it. Why the passion for keeping a team name of which you aren't even a fan?
<< <i>Here is where it may get dicey. Are you proposing a court or congressional or executive action to force a name change? That would of course set a dangerous precedent as to which names are ok and which are in violation. I never liked the name Hebrew National for a hot dog, but I respect the name that the owners have used for many years. Should everything be on the table that offends and who is the decision maker in this brave new world?
I would appreciate an answer. >>
I am not in favor of anything involving an outside force changing the name. The ground swell of support is already in motion and is only going to gain momentum. History has shown, time and again, this type of attitude and behavior to be unacceptable and it wipes it out. This team name will be changed. It may not be today, or tomorrow, but change is coming, and it can't happen soon enough.
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
You have made your point to the defenders that the use of the names is indeed offensive, and of poor taste, because now their main point is that it is Snyder's team, and he can do what he wants with it(a point that is obvious and nobody even contended to begin with).
Some continue to make ridiculous comparisons that have no bearing whatsoever, such as, "the white sox will soon be offensive too", but those are thoughts of an imbecile, so I would just discount them.
I would say good job to your efforts, as you have shown that that their previous contentions were wrong, as they STILL cannot answer to the above, or to your cartoon montage...both of which ARE the argument, and not the argument they are trying to make it. They know any answer they give will show them to be either hypocrites, bigots, or just plain wrong, hence why they do not attempt to counter that point.
Great job painting them into a corner which they cannot get out of, as they are now trying deflect your victory by making different arguments.
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
You have made your point to the defenders that the use of the names is indeed offensive, and of poor taste, because now their main point is that it is Snyder's team, and he can do what he wants with it(a point that is obvious and nobody even contended to begin with).
Some continue to make ridiculous comparisons that have no bearing whatsoever, such as, "the white sox will soon be offensive too", but those are thoughts of an imbecile, so I would just discount them.
I would say good job to your efforts, as you have shown that that their previous contentions were wrong, as they STILL cannot answer to the above, or to your cartoon montage...both of which ARE the argument, and not the argument they are trying to make it. They know any answer they give will show them to be either hypocrites, bigots, or just plain wrong, hence why they do not attempt to counter that point.
Great job painting them into a corner which they cannot get out of, as they are now trying deflect your victory by making different arguments. >>
WrestlingCardKing, and all the other fellas who have shown a case that the terms and mascots are offensive,
Keep in mind the job you have done. One poster firmly believed that only 9% of Native Americans were offended, and he used this ridiculously bad and outdated poll as if it were actually true. He has since moved that number to 20%.
The finality of it is that WrestlingCardKings' two posts have shown that the use of the mascots and the terms are indeed offensive and of bad taste, a point that all the defenders fought tooth and nail against previously. You have done the impossible, and made guys on the internet change their mind.
Those guys can keep the argument going a different direction if they wish, but until they can give a good answer to the actual point of the debate, you have won. But they won't try, because any attempt to counter your posts only leads to proving them as either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong.
As for what to do next to promote an actual change? I think it has started already. Teams have already changed...it just takes time. Keep pressing.
Nobody should be anybody's pet....even though Edmundfitzgerald and MgLicker have been owned in this entire debate
<< <i>The finality of it is that WrestlingCardKings' two posts have shown that the use of the mascots and the terms are indeed offensive and of bad taste, a point that all the defenders fought tooth and nail against previously. You have done the impossible, and made guys on the internet change their mind. >>
Though it is not fair to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed, I will continue....
I cannot speak for the other posters, but I can speak for myself. I am not a Democrat or a Liberal or a (shudder) Progressive. What I mean is, I am a free thinker and do not subscribe to any mantra. 1985fan and I seemed to come to an agreement about how this change that you folks are fighting so hard for can come about.
That does not mean that I find the team name or the mascots or the Tomahawk chop offensive or in need of change. If you guys are willing to attempt to force a change in a legal and above board manner, so be it. I won't lose any sleep if the name changes as long as the government stays the hell out of it.
There are much bigger problems to resolve, like dismantling ObamaCare.......
I knew that eventually, if this thread lasted long enough, that it would be all Obama's fault..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I knew that eventually, if this thread lasted long enough, that it would be all Obama's fault.. >>
Of course. From the same guy who has ranted about women in the military, worries about the second amendment, the guy is a walking fox news talking point bandwagon.
<< <i>I knew that eventually, if this thread lasted long enough, that it would be all Obama's fault.. >>
Of course. From the same guy who has ranted about women in the military, worries about the second amendment, the guy is a walking fox news talking point bandwagon. >>
Please read my comments further in the woman in military thread before jumping to any conclusions.
I make no apologies for defending the second amendment.
I watch Fox sometimes but they get a bit claustrophobic for me. I prefer CNN which is much farther to the left, but the characters are much more entertaining.
Comments
<< <i>
I can't help but shake my head as I read into your thought process with your litany of clueless posts. There was a time when 10-20% of the population tried to convince the nation to end slavery. How DARE they try to convince the majority population that they should change their minds??? >>
Now you're trying to associate the use of a term that over 80% of the people feel is just fine with SLAVERY.
Are you serious, or are you having a few too many today ?
What will you be equating the term Redskin to next ? Torture ? Rape ?
You are funny to read though. I'm laughing every time I read what you write, so please keep entertaining me.
I don't think the select few on this board will change their minds on the topic...they are set in their ways. I will say that it has been a privilege watching some of the smartest people on this board tackle this subject, and I am referring to Grote, boopotts, Baseball, and Wrestlingcardking. They have intelligence, common sense, wisdom....and they articulate their points VERY well. The rest of us are merely fans
Baseball, as pointed out, there is some questionable decency to be sad about in this thread. But if there is one thing to be happy about, it is the fact that Edmundfitzgerald has finally moved off that ridiculous notion, based off that ridiculous study, that only 9% of Native Americans are offended. Now that bar has moved to 20% for him.
Like Boopotts said way earlier on in another thread(and Baseball also reiterated), at what percent will it take for these people to change their minds? 25%, 40%? And, at 20%, it is kind of sad that they would just completely disregard that amount of people.
My guess, is if that percent moved to a higher mark, that instead of changing their minds, they will abandon that point altogther
<< <i>Baseball,
I don't think the select few on this board will change their minds on the topic...they are set in their ways. I will say that it has been a privilege watching some of the smartest people on this board tackle this subject, and I am referring to Grote, boopotts, Baseball, and Wrestlingcardking. They have intelligence, common sense, wisdom....and they articulate their points VERY well. The rest of us are merely fans
Baseball, as pointed out, there is some questionable decency to be sad about in this thread. But if there is one thing to be happy about, it is the fact that Edmundfitzgerald has finally moved off that ridiculous notion, based off that ridiculous study, that only 9% of Native Americans are offended. Now that bar has moved to 20% for him.
Like Boopotts said way earlier on in another thread(and Baseball also reiterated), at what percent will it take for these people to change their minds? 25%, 40%? And, at 20%, it is kind of sad that they would just completely disregard that amount of people.
My guess, is if that percent moved to a higher mark, that instead of changing their minds, they will abandon that point altogther
It's the Internet, Skin- you can't change you mind. If you do, you get kicked off.
As for this Redskins nonsense, the bottom line (from my perspective) is that we have a major sports team in our nation's capital that chooses to use a racial slur as its nickname. That, in a word, is just tacky- and that tackiness holds regardless of how many Native Americans are actually offended by the term. Like a lot of folks, I'd like to see it changed for that reason; not because the world will stop spinning if it isn't, or because I believe that every year 1000's of Native Americans jump off bridges,unable to live with the pain and humiliation they feel when they think of this nickname, but simply because it's an embarrassing nickname. And either guys get that or they don't. It's like wearing a hat to a formal dinner, or putting your feet up on your host's coffee table: It's possible that nobody's offended by it, but it's still poor form.
I agree.
When Wrestlingcardking put the full blown cartoon visual up there associating American Indians with other races, I figured that even the most staunch defenders of bigotry would at least stop and pause for a moment to see the connection...but apparently there are about six blind mice instead of three
When you asked, have any of the defenders ever actually stated what percent of 'offended' people it will take to cause them to change their stance?
At least the one guy has changed hanging onto that ridiculous 9% study like it was written in stone or something. Now he is up to 20%. Soon that will climb. Then once it does, the defenders will abandon the point altogether. In the meantime, they walk around actually feeling good that 20% of a race(which already have other issues going against them) is also being humiliated by the issue of being somebody's pet. Nice guys.
Are you that put off by socially conscious folks who want to see progressive change happen in this country? Has your media outlet of choice so indoctrinated you that they have you believing changing this football team's name is an attack on capitalism and should be fought at every turn? Or are you really a racist at heart and is using this controversy to out your hatred of other races?
For all the fury and bluster the defenders of this team name have, I have YET to see a single post explaining why they are so adamant in their desire to see the continued use of it.
Fitz, you're the worst offender in this thread BY A MILE. First it was 'only' 9% of Native Americans who were offended, and that wasn't enough to make you change your mind. Now you've found another study in which 'only' 20% are offended, yet you still are resolute in your desire to see the continued use of this racist team name. Even when proof is given (repeatedly!) that has thousands of Native American tribes standing up in protest, you REFUSE to concede and admit that they should change the name. Either you're a racist, or you're completely ignorant. Either way, you, sir, are WRONG.
We have a select group of people in America that are offended by our pledge of allegiance. We even had a court in San Francisco rule in their favor, but it was
eventually overturned.
This large group of Americans are offended that One Nation Under God is in our pledge.
I'm asking you if you believe in this cause, that is, that America should drop "One Nation under God" from the pledge because of how it offends many Americans.
It doesn't matter if it's 50%, 20%, 10%, or 1%, because according to your logic, if it even offends just a few people, it should be changed.
Or should America stand firm on the courts position that if you are offended, than you don't have to recite it ?
many Americans were behind this movement.
I wonder how baseball felt when he saw all those Senators stand in Washington and recite the Pledge of Allegience after the court ruling. I wonder if he felt
like the Senators were mocking the offended, because obviously they shared no sympathy for them by reciting the pledge.
You really need to leave this thread and never respond to it again.
You have zero credibility here until you throw out all your football cards with the name Redskins on them.
It's likened to a person coming on here telling us how bad the N word is, yet that same person has hundreds of hobby cards with the N word on it.
So go throw out any wax boxes (with Redskin cards in them) psa holders (with Redskins cards in them), and raw cards.
Then, and only then, will you have any credibility.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate.
<< <i>Perhaps by executive order, the president could just drop all of the professional team names and assign each a number. On Sunday #31 would travel to #517's home field for a night game. Of course #13 and #666 would have to be skipped to avoid any hurt feelings.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate. >>
Your weak attempt at trivializing the matter or adding humor...simply did not work. Sorry.
I learned something new...didn't know numbers had feelings or thoughts...or were a conquered group of people.
Not even sure why I responded to this quote...it is ignorant in every way imaginable.
<< <i>I have a question for the crowd.
We have a select group of people in America that are offended by our pledge of allegiance. We even had a court in San Francisco rule in their favor, but it was
eventually overturned.
This large group of Americans are offended that One Nation Under God is in our pledge.
I'm asking you if you believe in this cause, that is, that America should drop "One Nation under God" from the pledge because of how it offends many Americans.
It doesn't matter if it's 50%, 20%, 10%, or 1%, because according to your logic, if it even offends just a few people, it should be changed.
Or should America stand firm on the courts position that if you are offended, than you don't have to recite it ? >>
Completely different topic. Are those people who are suing, a conquered race that have had their people exterminated and their lands taken, and then further trivialized by then becoming a mascot and pet for a mere sports teams that use racist terms and/or demeaning caricatures of them?
Personally, I haven't put a lot of thought into, or looked at, that dilemma. I won't comment on it until I look into it more, sort, and formulate my thoughts on the matter.
As a side note, why should anybody answer your questions, when you have dodged questions that were actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. Everyone answers your questions(no matter how far off the point they are), yet you dodge the pertinent question because you know the answers will contradict foolish points you have made throughout.
I'm still waiting for you to answer, at what percent of 'offended' Native Americans do you then change your stance? Currently you have it at 20%, but still laugh and champion about those 20% being humiliated for being somebody's pet.
Also, you have gone on record saying naming or referring to people based on skin color is not a problem at all.
I answered your silly Frank Sinatra Blue eyes example.
Would you start a youth team and name it redskins, yellowskins, or blackskins? It is a simple question and answer. I have answered all your questions. Stop being vague and hiding.
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps by executive order, the president could just drop all of the professional team names and assign each a number. On Sunday #31 would travel to #517's home field for a night game. Of course #13 and #666 would have to be skipped to avoid any hurt feelings.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate. >>
Your weak attempt at trivializing the matter or adding humor...simply did not work. Sorry.
I learned something new...didn't know numbers had feelings or thoughts...or were a conquered group of people.
Not even sure why I responded to this quote...it is ignorant in every way imaginable. >>
Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps by executive order, the president could just drop all of the professional team names and assign each a number. On Sunday #31 would travel to #517's home field for a night game. Of course #13 and #666 would have to be skipped to avoid any hurt feelings.
#7 would also have to be omitted as it could be considered to give an unfair advantage.
The prez could set up a website to disperse the numbers. Make it a requirement. Any non complying teams would face an IRS penalty if they ignored the mandate. >>
Your weak attempt at trivializing the matter or adding humor...simply did not work. Sorry.
I learned something new...didn't know numbers had feelings or thoughts...or were a conquered group of people.
Not even sure why I responded to this quote...it is ignorant in every way imaginable. >>
Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack. >>
If that is a typical response you get, then it is probably a sign that you should probably find a more rationale approach that actually makes sense...because you failed miserably in your attempt.
You are talking about numbers having hurt feelings and comparing it to the topic on hand. It is just stupid. It is dumb in any language, context, race, country. Anywhere.
<< <i>
Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack. >>
Thank you for proving my initial assertion that the only people still fighting for the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team is having their media of choice telling them it's an attack on capitalism and their personal liberty. When you resort to ad hominem attacks that aren't based on anything resembling the initial topic, then you, my friend, have lost the fight.
As far as the pledge of allegiance topic, again, another off topic talking point from the biggest proponent of perpetuating the use of this redskin term isn't surprising. Time and again he finds a way to make himself look even more foolish and completely incompetent when it comes to debate.
I will ask fitz, glicker, and the others AGAIN why are you fighting so hard for the continued use of the term 'Redskin' to identify a football team? I ask would you, in your every day lives, identify any group of people by the color of their skin (i.e. 'yellowskins' or 'blackskins') and if not, why not? Afraid of the (deserved) beating you would endure as a result? What are you fighting for in this debate? If the team name were changed tomorrow to Red Storm (to copy the St. Johns example) how would your life be affected? Is it because those mythical 'PC Police' and those 'liberals' got their way and you can't have that?
The very facts that the proponents for the use of the term (a) can't (or won't) state why they are such a proponent of the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team, and (b) refuse to stay on topic and continue to bring up completely unrelated topics is proof positive that these folks are simply lining up behind their media's point of view that changing the team name is bad because it lets 'them' win (whoever they are is irrelevant, they have to toe the company line).
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>
We have a select group of people in America that are offended by our pledge of allegiance. We even had a court in San Francisco rule in their favor, but it was
eventually overturned.
>>
Not that is has ANY relevance to the topic at hand (big surprise, it coming from you), but the words 'under god' were only added long AFTER the original pledge was introduced, and only done during the Red Scare of the 50s. It has NO place in a pledge to America, and should be removed immediately. It offends and alienates segments of the population who either don't believe in a god or don't believe in the Christian god.
<< <i>This large group of Americans are offended that One Nation Under God is in our pledge.
I'm asking you if you believe in this cause, that is, that America should drop "One Nation under God" from the pledge because of how it offends many Americans.
It doesn't matter if it's 50%, 20%, 10%, or 1%, because according to your logic, if it even offends just a few people, it should be changed. >>
It has NOTHING to do with offending people but EVERYTHING to do with it not belonging there in the first place. It was originally composed in 1892 and went "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." NO MENTION of 'under god' and it should be expunged and taken back to its original composition immediately, not because it offends anyone but because it's not the original pledge!
Game over, little man, you lose again. Now back to the original topic.
Or should America stand firm on the courts position that if you are offended, than you don't have to recite it ? >>
One nation under God has been opposed by offended atheists throughout our country in different states like California and Massachusettes. It has everything to
do with offending atheists, who don't believe in God.
This will be the last time I respond to your lies, because not only are you a hypocrite for having Washington Redskins football cards under
your roof, but you call people offensive names while you fight to have a name you feel is offensive removed.
Perhaps you should take some time supporting people who are offended by people who get offended.
There is a large part of society that gets offended when they hear stories about the 1-10% of the population that cry and whine about every little thing.
No, not slavery, or rape, or the N word, but about things that only 1-10% of the population care about.
Perhaps you should champion the cause of the 90% who get offended by the 1-10% who always try to cry as loud as they can about what the majority see as trivial.
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
I wanted to quote this because THIS is the issue. All those other comparisons people try to equate with it, simply don't compare.
This example, and Wrestlingcardking's cartoon montage example, highlight it perfectly.
Wrestlingcardking, your two posts in the entire thread have silenced them, because they know there is no argument to debunk it...as any argument they try can only lead to them admitting they are either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong...none of which people like to admit to. That is why they won't answer certain questions, and your two key posts.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
I wanted to quote this because THIS is the issue. All those other comparisons people try to equate with it, simply don't compare.
This example, and Wrestlingcardking's cartoon montage example, highlight it perfectly.
Wrestlingcardking, your two posts in the entire thread have silenced them, because they know there is no argument to debunk it...as any argument they try can only lead to them admitting they are either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong...none of which people like to admit to. That is why they won't answer certain questions, and your two key posts. >>
If it's all inclusive (ie regardless of sport: every team name, mascot, cheer), I'll support your decision 100%. Again, I strongly recommend boycotting because that's the best way to get a private company's attention. Making a personal sacrifice, taking a pledge not to financially support, and actually doing something other than talking in circles on a sports card forum.
Actions speak louder than words.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
I wanted to quote this because THIS is the issue. All those other comparisons people try to equate with it, simply don't compare.
This example, and Wrestlingcardking's cartoon montage example, highlight it perfectly.
Wrestlingcardking, your two posts in the entire thread have silenced them, because they know there is no argument to debunk it...as any argument they try can only lead to them admitting they are either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong...none of which people like to admit to. That is why they won't answer certain questions, and your two key posts. >>
If it's all inclusive (ie regardless of sport: every team name, mascot, cheer), I'll support your decision 100%. Again, I strongly recommend boycotting because that's the best way to get a private company's attention. Making a personal sacrifice, taking a pledge not to financially support, and actually doing something other than talking in circles on a sports card forum.
Actions speak louder than words.
While I am at it, I will go ahead and solve the Middle East problem too.
Maybe it starts somewhere, and talk is where it usually starts. Life isn't easy. Changing society isn't easy. Changing a mere sports team name and using a race as a mascot is easy to change
Nice way to deflect and avoid answering to those two posts, since you have stated you are a defender
<< <i>Maybe it starts somewhere, and talk is where it usually starts. Life isn't easy. Changing society isn't easy. Changing a mere sports team name and using a race as a mascot is easy to change
Nice way to deflect and avoid answering to those two posts, since you have stated you are a defender
Of course he (and others like him) deflect, avoid, and spin to try to answer, because any of the reasons for defending the continued use of this racist term are all unsavory;
(1) they're racists (I think this is by far the least likely possibility, but it is one);
(2) they think Native Americans aren't deserving of the respect needed to change the team name (again, less likely);
(3) they think fighting anything the supposed 'PC Police' fight for has to be wrong so they will in turn fight back;
(4) they truly are ignorant enough to think using a race of people as mascots for a sports franchise isn't wrong.
That's it. That's the list of possibilities. I can't think of any other possible reason for the vehement defense of the continued use of 'Redskin' to name a sports team, and, they are all terrible reasons for fighting the inevitable name change.
<< <i>While I am at it, I will go ahead and solve the Middle East problem too.
Maybe it starts somewhere, and talk is where it usually starts. Life isn't easy. Changing society isn't easy. Changing a mere sports team name and using a race as a mascot is easy to change
Nice way to deflect and avoid answering to those two posts, since you have stated you are a defender
See, that's the problem. The attitude is you're either with us or against us. I'm neither. I understand why some see Native American portrayals can be offensive but due to personal experiences, understand why others see it as pride an honor. What I do completely disagree with is the tactic of telling one private company to change their name with shame and name calling. If it was a public company or government entity, you would have my full support but it's not.
Change is hard, there's no doubt about it. However, boycotting a non-essential activity is *really* easy. It's not like your committing to a hunger strike that puts your health and life in jeopardy. Rather than buy a pack of cards or licensed shirt, send the money to a tribe of your choosing. Instead of sitting on the couch and watching the games, do *anything* but that.
It really is just that easy, skin.
Of course I could do more, we all can. Many of those things are on a scale of easy/hard. However, the name change, is the easiest, and can have a BIG impact on the whole issue...especially coming from a team in such a high profile league. In fact, if Dan Snyder says he is honoring them, then HE should show it by changing the name, because it IS offensive. If he doesn't change it, then he is lying or ignorant on what honoring them is!
As for private/public company...that isn't the topic. Obviously, private companies are free to do what they wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it is offensive, and THAT is the argument. Wrestlingcardkings's posts are the argument.
However, there are people on here trumpeting the use of it and showing glee in doing so, for reasons laid out by1985fan. You aren't one of them. However, there still is NOT a good answer to WrestlingcardKing's post and questions. Reason why, is because there are none that would make sense. Any answer against it makes one either a hypocrite, a bigot, or just wrong.
PS, if all my contribution to the cause is simply giving them the respect they deserve, and not some type of monetary contribution or boycott organizer, that puts me ahead of a whole lot of people(as evidenced by this board). Is it enough? I have no idea if it is. I'm just a regular dude who likes to have fun, and enjoy the company of family and friends.
<< <i>Stown,
Of course I could do more, we all can. Many of those things are on a scale of easy/hard. However, the name change, is the easiest, and can have a BIG impact on the whole issue...especially coming from a team in such a high profile league. In fact, if Dan Snyder says he is honoring them, then HE should show it by changing the name, because it IS offensive. If he doesn't change it, then he is lying or ignorant on what honoring them is!
As for private/public company...that isn't the topic. Obviously, private companies are free to do what they wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it is offensive, and THAT is the argument. Wrestlingcardkings's posts are the argument.
However, there are people on here trumpeting the use of it and showing glee in doing so, for reasons laid out by1985fan. You aren't one of them. However, there still is NOT a good answer to WrestlingcardKing's post and questions. Reason why, is because there are none that would make sense. Any answer against it makes one either a hypocrite, a bigot, or just wrong.
PS, if all my contribution to the cause is simply giving them the respect they deserve, and not some type of monetary contribution or boycott organizer, that puts me ahead of a whole lot of people(as evidenced by this board). Is it enough? I have no idea if it is. I'm just a regular dude who likes to have fun, and enjoy the company of family and friends. >>
So removing all Native American references out of sports is now the topic? I've already said I'm okay with that but the previous thread specifically targeted the 'Washington Redskins'. You may not agree with it but changing a team's name does come down to the entity. Public companies have to answer shareholders and government has taxpayers, but private companies only have to answer themselves. No amount of keyboard shaming will change Snider's mind; only actions and hitting his pocketbook can do that.
As for contributions, showing respect is just as good as a donation. I was simply providing an alternative to consciously putting money in Dan's wallet, which is a double standard and hypocritical.
I agree changing the team's name comes down to the team itself. I don't think ANYBODY disagrees with that. That point can be checked off and moved on.
The major thing being discussed is whether or not it is proper/not proper, offensive/not offensive, to use that name(or other terms, mascots). Some are basically laughing at, and mocking the idea, that it is offensive, and that is what myself, Boo, Baseball, WestlingCardKing, etc... are debating.
Back on point. I have to reiterate that those questions laid out above still stand to those who do not see the offensiveness of the use of the names/terms.
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
<< <i>
<< <i>
Typical response by the lefties. Only possible rationale for disagreeing with their brilliance is idiocy. You could have a fine career at NPR or as a MSNBC political hack. >>
Thank you for proving my initial assertion that the only people still fighting for the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team is having their media of choice telling them it's an attack on capitalism and their personal liberty. When you resort to ad hominem attacks that aren't based on anything resembling the initial topic, then you, my friend, have lost the fight.
As far as the pledge of allegiance topic, again, another off topic talking point from the biggest proponent of perpetuating the use of this redskin term isn't surprising. Time and again he finds a way to make himself look even more foolish and completely incompetent when it comes to debate.
I will ask fitz, glicker, and the others AGAIN why are you fighting so hard for the continued use of the term 'Redskin' to identify a football team? I ask would you, in your every day lives, identify any group of people by the color of their skin (i.e. 'yellowskins' or 'blackskins') and if not, why not? Afraid of the (deserved) beating you would endure as a result? What are you fighting for in this debate? If the team name were changed tomorrow to Red Storm (to copy the St. Johns example) how would your life be affected? Is it because those mythical 'PC Police' and those 'liberals' got their way and you can't have that?
The very facts that the proponents for the use of the term (a) can't (or won't) state why they are such a proponent of the continued use of this racist term to identify a football team, and (b) refuse to stay on topic and continue to bring up completely unrelated topics is proof positive that these folks are simply lining up behind their media's point of view that changing the team name is bad because it lets 'them' win (whoever they are is irrelevant, they have to toe the company line). >>
First off, my media of choice is CNN, I watch Fox as well and if my stomach is not already upset, a bit of MSNBC just to see where the other side is on an issue. When at my computer, I usually have NPR on the radio as it is now. It is only non subscriber station that gives any real news coverage.
Second, I don't give a rats tuchas what the name of the Washington team is. Major league teams are typically owned by a bunch of drooling Billionaires that suck dry the communities that feverishly support their product by hosing the taxpayers for new stadiums and improvements.
Problem is, the name and therefore brand has been in place for what, 80 years. We are in a new and dangerous era of sappy left wingers deciding what is best for everyone else. We end up with an obese first lady dictating school lunch policy and a cigarette smoking ex crack user setting healthcare policy for 300,000,000 Americans.
Snyder can damn well do what he wants with the team. He paid for it. If enough folks are offended by the name and quit buying season tickets he may want to reconsider. That is his business, not mine.
Today Redskin's is unacceptable, tomorrow the White Sox (that could be considered exclusionary you know) Next the thoughtless police will consider the name of my business derogatory, your business will be next.
Yeah, I am a product of the 1960's and 70's. You guys think that we are dinosaurs, so be it. We grew up in the shadow of WWII and our parents fought to defend the freedoms that our Constitutions guarantee us. A close family friend lost a foot to the Nazis when he was interred by the vermin in a concentration camp.
You fools think that all of that should be forgotten as it is now 2013 and the logic of an elite administration and his brain stifled followers reign supreme. Well you are wrong, a few of us are still around and until we are gone, we will challenge the stupidity and nation destroying corruption
that pervades every crevice of society.
The term 'redskin' is racist and needs to be changed no matter what the willfully ignorant dinosaurs say.
<< <i>Using 'that is how it's been for years' is an abysmal excuse for excusing racism. 'That's how it's been for years!' was the reasoning against ending slavery, for ending th e ban on interracial marriage, for excluding gay marriage...the li is seemingly endless. Just because things have been a certain way for decades doesn't exclude them from being wrong and wanting the changed.
The term 'redskin' is racist and needs to be changed no matter what the willfully ignorant dinosaurs say. >>
You are comparing the name of a football team to slavery? I know that this thread is 161 posts long, but you should have a more logical defense left in your quiver. What other draconian laws of the T Rex's need to be changed? Let me guess, the 2nd amendment needs to be tossed and anyone who jumped the fence to live is this country should now be a US citizen with a new Porsche and a home on the beach.
What else is your teleprompter telling you to recite?
<< <i>
Snyder can damn well do what he wants with the team. He paid for it. If enough folks are offended by the name and quit buying season tickets he may want to reconsider. That is his business, not mine.
. >>
And if people are really offended by Chick-Fil-A's stand on marriage, than don't buy their product. If enough people are offended, than they'll go out of business.
A business (Wasington Redskins) has the freedom to choose any brand name they want for their product. They obviously are making millions of dollars off that brand name,
so obviously enough people aren't offended by it. This is a privately held company. They can do what they want, no matter who is offended by a name that
really isn't even offensive to over 80% of the population.
Everyone who is offended by the Redskin name can just stop supporting the NFL. But will they ??? NO ! Why won't they ? Because they have no convictions about
what they spout on the internet. Like I've said before, 1985fan continues to have his Redskins cards in his collection. Absolutely no conviction whatsoever. Just a lot of
blah,blah,blah over the internet.
God bless America. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
If you are unable to see the term redskin as offensive then nothing I or anyone can as will change your mind. It's sad, really, that one segment of th population has made the term 'progressive' a negative one.
The Cowboys make the most money. The Patriots are second. The Redskins are third.
The NFL makes more money per year than MLB, NHL, and NBA.
THE NFL IS A CASH COW.
The Redskins are the #3 PIG.
OINK...OINK
<< <i>
A business (Wasington Redskins) has the freedom to choose any brand name they want for their product. >>
So you'd have no problem whatsoever for a team to move to LA and name themselves the 'Brownskins'? Or 'Yellowskins'?
<< <i> They obviously are making millions of dollars off that brand name, so obviously enough people aren't offended by it. This is a privately held company. They can do what they want, no matter who is offended by a name that really isn't even offensive to over 80% of the population. >>
Why do you continue to spout these numbers as if they have some relevance to the discussion? Why are you so against the name change? Why are you fighting so fiercely against changing a team name that is a racial slur?
<< <i>Everyone who is offended by the Redskin name can just stop supporting the NFL. But will they ??? NO ! Why won't they ? Because they have no convictions about
what they spout on the internet. Like I've said before, 1985fan continues to have his Redskins cards in his collection. Absolutely no conviction whatsoever. Just a lot of
blah,blah,blah over the internet. >>
And some people can continue to prove, time and time again, how racist their views really are.
<< <i>My only teleprompter is my conscience, sir. I'm sorry you are unable to differentiate this topic from the many you continue to bring up as they are unrelated, but it seems apparent you feed on talking points.
If you are unable to see the term redskin as offensive then nothing I or anyone can as will change your mind. It's sad, really, that one segment of th population has made the term 'progressive' a negative one. >>
Sorry for getting caught up in the truculence. We can disagree and remain civil.
Please clarify your ideas for changing the name. I have not read all 165 of the posts, so may have missed it. Snyder is the team owner and has so far resisted calls for a change. Beyond that, what do you propose? A boycott. Ok, we have a fine American Tradition for that. Protests and letters-emails-texts to the team management? No problem as long as no laws are violated.
Here is where it may get dicey. Are you proposing a court or congressional or executive action to force a name change? That would of course set a dangerous precedent as to which names are ok and which are in violation. I never liked the name Hebrew National for a hot dog, but I respect the name that the owners have used for many years. Should everything be on the table that offends and who is the decision maker in this brave new world?
I would appreciate an answer.
<< <i>
Please clarify your ideas for changing the name. I have not read all 165 of the posts, so may have missed it. Snyder is the team owner and has so far resisted calls for a change. Beyond that, what do you propose? A boycott. Ok, we have a fine American Tradition for that. Protests and letters-emails-texts to the team management? No problem as long as no laws are violated.
>>
What I would love to know is why people are willing to dismiss the offensiveness of a mascot and team name which completely marginalizes a race of people. It doesn't matter that the term has been used for decades - other things which have been deemed demeaning to other races ('blackface' comes to mind immediately) have been excised out of popular culture (and rightfully so), why are some people so beholden to this particular team? I have yet to see a fan of the team chime in on this, which is peculiar that so many people are so against the change without having a single vested interest in it. Why the passion for keeping a team name of which you aren't even a fan?
<< <i>Here is where it may get dicey. Are you proposing a court or congressional or executive action to force a name change? That would of course set a dangerous precedent as to which names are ok and which are in violation. I never liked the name Hebrew National for a hot dog, but I respect the name that the owners have used for many years. Should everything be on the table that offends and who is the decision maker in this brave new world?
I would appreciate an answer. >>
I am not in favor of anything involving an outside force changing the name. The ground swell of support is already in motion and is only going to gain momentum. History has shown, time and again, this type of attitude and behavior to be unacceptable and it wipes it out. This team name will be changed. It may not be today, or tomorrow, but change is coming, and it can't happen soon enough.
<< <i>Nothing is ever going to change because even those who are opposed really don't care >>
They must be feeling the heat as the cards are 50% off!
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
You have made your point to the defenders that the use of the names is indeed offensive, and of poor taste, because now their main point is that it is Snyder's team, and he can do what he wants with it(a point that is obvious and nobody even contended to begin with).
Some continue to make ridiculous comparisons that have no bearing whatsoever, such as, "the white sox will soon be offensive too", but those are thoughts of an imbecile, so I would just discount them.
I would say good job to your efforts, as you have shown that that their previous contentions were wrong, as they STILL cannot answer to the above, or to your cartoon montage...both of which ARE the argument, and not the argument they are trying to make it. They know any answer they give will show them to be either hypocrites, bigots, or just plain wrong, hence why they do not attempt to counter that point.
Great job painting them into a corner which they cannot get out of, as they are now trying deflect your victory by making different arguments.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am waiting for the day that the defenders, the actual people, of native mascots decide to name one of their community little league or pop warner football teams after another race instead of Indians and honor them too because they deserve it. The honorers of racist mascots can dress up like them, portray the stereotypes of them to the nth degree and see the outrage that would come their way. Name your team with a non-racist term like Kings after MLK. In the mean time, be sure to dress up like him (black paint necessary if you are white), imitate his speeches to others, includes aspects of religion in here as many deeply spiritual experiences are basically ridiculed by others when in a sports context, and do nothing but honor the team and I am sure you will be making the news in no time. You could literally be on ABC, NBC, CBS all of them.....and I am sure you would be known as the town racist or bigot and people and/or businesses would want to distance themselves from you, to not be associated with you, and depending where you work fired or on ad min leave. Yet it is perfectly okay for mascots to happen to native people, why? >>
You have made your point to the defenders that the use of the names is indeed offensive, and of poor taste, because now their main point is that it is Snyder's team, and he can do what he wants with it(a point that is obvious and nobody even contended to begin with).
Some continue to make ridiculous comparisons that have no bearing whatsoever, such as, "the white sox will soon be offensive too", but those are thoughts of an imbecile, so I would just discount them.
I would say good job to your efforts, as you have shown that that their previous contentions were wrong, as they STILL cannot answer to the above, or to your cartoon montage...both of which ARE the argument, and not the argument they are trying to make it. They know any answer they give will show them to be either hypocrites, bigots, or just plain wrong, hence why they do not attempt to counter that point.
Great job painting them into a corner which they cannot get out of, as they are now trying deflect your victory by making different arguments. >>
Do you get migraines often?
<< <i>
Do you get migraines often? >>
The blind most certainly lead the blind.
Both can't see, and neither know which way they are going.
Keep in mind the job you have done. One poster firmly believed that only 9% of Native Americans were offended, and he used this ridiculously bad and outdated poll as if it were actually true. He has since moved that number to 20%.
The finality of it is that WrestlingCardKings' two posts have shown that the use of the mascots and the terms are indeed offensive and of bad taste, a point that all the defenders fought tooth and nail against previously. You have done the impossible, and made guys on the internet change their mind.
Those guys can keep the argument going a different direction if they wish, but until they can give a good answer to the actual point of the debate, you have won. But they won't try, because any attempt to counter your posts only leads to proving them as either hypocrites, bigots, or just wrong.
As for what to do next to promote an actual change? I think it has started already. Teams have already changed...it just takes time. Keep pressing.
Nobody should be anybody's pet....even though Edmundfitzgerald and MgLicker have been owned in this entire debate
<< <i>The finality of it is that WrestlingCardKings' two posts have shown that the use of the mascots and the terms are indeed offensive and of bad taste, a point that all the defenders fought tooth and nail against previously. You have done the impossible, and made guys on the internet change their mind. >>
Though it is not fair to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed, I will continue....
I cannot speak for the other posters, but I can speak for myself. I am not a Democrat or a Liberal or a (shudder) Progressive. What I mean is, I am a free thinker and do not subscribe to any mantra. 1985fan and I seemed to come to an agreement about how this change that you folks are fighting so hard for can come about.
That does not mean that I find the team name or the mascots or the Tomahawk chop offensive or in need of change. If you guys are willing to attempt to force a change in a legal and above board manner, so be it. I won't lose any sleep if the name changes as long as the government stays the hell out of it.
There are much bigger problems to resolve, like dismantling ObamaCare.......
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I knew that eventually, if this thread lasted long enough, that it would be all Obama's fault.. >>
Of course. From the same guy who has ranted about women in the military, worries about the second amendment, the guy is a walking fox news talking point bandwagon.
<< <i>
<< <i>I knew that eventually, if this thread lasted long enough, that it would be all Obama's fault.. >>
Of course. From the same guy who has ranted about women in the military, worries about the second amendment, the guy is a walking fox news talking point bandwagon. >>
Please read my comments further in the woman in military thread before jumping to any conclusions.
I make no apologies for defending the second amendment.
I watch Fox sometimes but they get a bit claustrophobic for me. I prefer CNN which is much farther to the left, but the characters are much more entertaining.