US Patent Office cancels Washington Redskins' trademark

[IlluminatusUIUC]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11102096/us-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Patent Office has ruled the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans'' and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be canceled.

The 2-1 ruling comes after a campaign to change the name has gained momentum over the past year. The team doesn't immediately lose trademark protection and is allowed to retain it during an appeal.
Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has refused to change the team's name, citing tradition, but there has been growing pressure including statements in recent months from President Barack Obama, lawmakers of both parties and civil rights groups.


The decision means that the team can continue to use the Redskins name, but it would lose a significant portion of its ability to protect its financial interests. If others printed the name on sweatshirts, apparel, or other team material, it becomes more difficult to go after people who use it without permission.


The NFL splits revenue from team merchandise sales and licensing 31 ways (the Cowboys have their own deal). In the end, if the Redskins lose money from losing their trademarks, the entire league will lose money -- and then it no longer just is about the Redskins and their name, but it's about all of the other teams in the NFL (except the Cowboys) losing money. That issue could bring a lot more pressure on Snyder about the name of the team.

Obviously this will be appealed, as that is an extremely valuable trademark, but it seems like the tide has really turned against the name.

[pmoon6]

Ahhh. Groupthink has even innundated professional sports. I wonder when the bears will band together and petition to have Chicago and Boston change the names of their sports teams.

[OLDSRIP]

Does the US Patent office have the power to determine what is disparaging to someone?
Has it happened before?

Or is that what will be appealed?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Does the US Patent office have the power to determine what is disparaging to someone?

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparagement

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it— (a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute;



Has it happened before?

Yes.


Or is that what will be appealed?

It will be appealed both the the grounds that it's not offensive (they will surely find some native groups to say so) and also that they waited too long to pursue this claim (which is why the earlier attempt to shut this down was defeated).

[trapezeus]

what's the longest a patent can remain outstanding? i vaguely recall 70 some years. how long have the redskins been the redskins?

and pmoon, way to make the straw man argument. we all know the bear contingency within america is very offended so this clearly is a slippery slope to changing all the team names into numbers.

i also suspect if that was the case, america would give up on football mostly because we don't like numbers.

[SpikedLemonade]

Is there a registered trademark already for the name "Dumb Pollocks"?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

what's the longest a patent can remain outstanding? i vaguely recall 70 some years. how long have the redskins been the redskins?

It's not a patent, it's a trademark. Trademarks are perpetual, provided you meet certain conditions.

[Mr. Miyagi]

How about the Washington Rednecks? Rednecks are always so proud to call themselves rednecks. It won't be disparaging at all.

[OpIv37]

So, if one group of Native Americans say it's offensive, and another group of Native Americans say it's not, how does PTO make a decision on the appeal? What criteria do they use?

[SpikedLemonade]

There would be no discussion at all whether Blackskins, Jewnoses or Whitescalps are offensive in 2014.

[stuckincincy]

This is the taking of legal property rights without due process.

Behind the facetious smile of a liberal is the snarl of a dictating tyrant.

[ublinkwescore]

This is so f***ing stupid... stop empowering people to infringe on the rights of others by simply saying that they are offended by some petty bull$#!t... This whole redskin thing also lends it's self to the argument that naming a team the "Redskins" pays tribute to native americans... they have been a team for how long? and only now people are *****ing about it? give me a f***ing break

- - - Updated - - -

This is so f***ing stupid... stop empowering people to infringe on the rights of others by simply saying that they are offended by some petty bull$#!t... This whole redskin thing also lends it's self to the argument that naming a team the "Redskins" pays tribute to native americans... they have been a team for how long? and only now people are *****ing about it? give me a f***ing break

[ublinkwescore]

How about the Washington Rednecks? Rednecks are always so proud to call themselves rednecks. It won't be disparaging at all.

they wouldn't have any african american players - they would all hold out -except for a few trying to capitalize on it a la Clinton Portis...

[THATHURMANATOR]

Why does anyone give a **** about this all the sudden?

I small vocal majority creating policy for the masses.

Typical America.

[stuckincincy]

Ahhh. Groupthink has even innundated professional sports. I wonder when the bears will band together and petition to have Chicago and Boston change the names of their sports teams.

Indeed. Reminds me of a song by the rock music group, Rush:

"The Trees"

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw."


All the hope and change collection of idiots on this board are in for a rude surprise when they think they get what they want, as they wake up to one-party rule and will have to beg and bribe some apparatchik for permission to fart.

[trapezeus]

if dan synder is so sure names don't offend, why doesn't he rename the team after his ethnic heritage with the most offensive name he can think of and then say, "it doesn't bother me". plus for him, it's a win win because he is in the top 5 of most egotisical owners in the league.

ublink, nice argument. People quietly just took it all this time and now that people actually are a little smarter than the 1950s, why change at all.

[swiper]

Is there a registered trademark already for the name "Dumb Pollocks"?

The population of North Tonawanda wonders as well.

[stuckincincy]

How about the Washington Rednecks? Rednecks are always so proud to call themselves rednecks. It won't be disparaging at all.

Redneck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

[OpIv37]

Why does anyone give a **** about this all the sudden?

I small vocal majority creating policy for the masses.

Typical America.

First, I think you meant "minority," not "majority."

Second, how is this creating policy? It's a regulatory decision that can be changed at any time, and in reality it only affects the name of one football team.

The problem here is that the NFL is a bunch of hypocrites. If any other group- Christians or gays or blacks or Muslims or Asians or Jews or a disability group or a women's group, etc- were offended by the NFL, they would bow to them and not think twice. But they're taking a stand on this one? Why should Native Americans be the only group that gets ignored by the league?

In reality I think it's about money. The Redskins are a profitable franchise because they play in a populated area with lots of expendable cash. Native Americans are decentralized and have notoriously high poverty levels, and the ones offended by the name probably still wouldn't spend money on the organization even if it does change.

Translation: it doesn't make financial sense to risk pissing off the Redskins' fan base to appease Native Americans, so the NFL won't do it willingly. Whether or not the name is offensive is completely irrelevant to Snyder or the league- it's all about the money.

[swiper]

Why weren't the Indians so offended about this 50 years ago? You know, back when the name had some social relevance.

[WagonCircler]

What always gets lost in this is that the name Redskins is not a reference to the skin color of "Native" Americans (who, by the way, emigrated from Mongolia--but I digress). It is a reference to a tribe whose warpaint was red. Yes, they painted their skin red.

There is absolutely NOTHING offensive about this, unless one is looking to be offended. The perceived slight is imagined.

This is nothing more than politically correct *********.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

This is the taking of legal property rights without due process.

Behind the facetious smile of a liberal is the snarl of a dictating tyrant.
I'm not sure you know what due process means.


So, if one group of Native Americans say it's offensive, and another group of Native Americans say it's not, how does PTO make a decision on the appeal? What criteria do they use?
I'm not sure. I don't know if they have published guidelines or if it is based on precedent.


Why weren't the Indians so offended about this 50 years ago? You know, back when the name had some social relevance.

They were. Just because you only heard about it recently doesn't make it a recent development.

[stuckincincy]

I'm not sure you know what due process means.





Educate me.

[DraftBoy]

Educate me.

Written notification, right to file a grievance, and right to appeal are the basics and the Redskins are being afforded all of those in this situation.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Educate me.

They have an independent finder of fact, the ability to bring counsel, the right to hear the evidence against them, and the right to appeal the decision not just once, but multiple times. You might not like the result, but they do get their due process.

[better days]

What always gets lost in this is that the name Redskins is not a reference to the skin color of "Native" Americans (who, by the way, emigrated from Mongolia--but I digress). It is a reference to a tribe whose warpaint was red. Yes, they painted their skin red.

There is absolutely NOTHING offensive about this, unless one is looking to be offended. The perceived slight is imagined.

This is nothing more than politically correct *********.

And n****r was just an abbreviated form of negro.

Imagine people being offended by an abbreviation.

(sarcasm for those that don't get it)

[GingerP]

This is the taking of legal property rights without due process.

There has been due process. This ruling is from a grievance filed by a group of Native Americans in 2006. It has been working through the process since and they just recently had a ruling.

It actually relates all the way back to the 1980's. Native American groups filed a petition to have the trademarks revoked in the mid-1980's, and it went on for 16 years before the trademark was revoked in 1999. It ended up being overturned on appeal because the plaintiffs were too old and waited too long to file their case (the trademark was initially trademarked in 1967).

In 2006, a younger group of Native Americans re-filed to have the trademarked revoked, and it just now has been revoked. It will likely again be appealed, and the team's attorneys have stated they think it will be revoked again as well. However, the political will has changed since then, and half of the Senate has thrown their support behind the name change petition. At least one Senator has stated she thinks the appeal will be upheld this time.

[stuckincincy]

They have an independent finder of fact, the ability to bring counsel, the right to hear the evidence against them, and the right to appeal the decision not just once, but multiple times. You might not like the result, but they do get their due process.

That doesn't seem a sufficient definition - not of sufficient breadth - of due process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

And AFAIK, this 2 to 1 decision of an administrative office - not the judiciary, not our legislators - decided that WAS no longer had the Redskins trademark. Meaning that anyone can market products with that name.

It was a sneaky thing, surely perpetrated by you-know-who's political minions under his majesty's direction.

Will we see the Patent Office rule 2 - 1 to let the word "Cowboys" be severed from the Dallas club, because after all, calling somebody a "cowboy" can be a personal derogation?

Oh wait - they aren't a population to rile up, to be pimped for votes, are they?

[better days]

And Redskins has been used as a derogatory term of Native Americans since the 1800's if not before then.

[GingerP]

That doesn't seem a sufficient definition - not of sufficient breadth - of due process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

And AFAIK, this 2 to 1 decision of an administrative office - not the judiciary, not our legislators - decided that WAS no longer had the Redskins trademark. Meaning that anyone can market products with that name.

It was a sneaky thing, surely perpetrated by you-know-who's political minions under his majesty's direction.

Will we see the Patent Office rule 2 - 1 to let the word "Cowboys" be severed from the Dallas club, because after all, calling somebody a "cowboy" can be a personal derogation?

Oh wait - they aren't a population to rile up, to be pimped for votes, are they?

You are kind of rambling here. There was a long process that was followed and both sides have presented their cases. "Cowboys" is not considered a racial slur, so I'm not sure how it is a relevant comparison. It is just a logical fallacy.

[Bill Cody]

What always gets lost in this is that the name Redskins is not a reference to the skin color of "Native" Americans (who, by the way, emigrated from Mongolia--but I digress). It is a reference to a tribe whose warpaint was red. Yes, they painted their skin red.

There is absolutely NOTHING offensive about this, unless one is looking to be offended. The perceived slight is imagined.

This is nothing more than politically correct *********.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The use of the word has evolved over time. Here's an article tracking the history of the word. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

I think there are 3 things true about the word that are not open to debate:

1) It has been used as an ethnic slur
2) Some Native Americans find it offensive
3) Even the folks that defend it's use would not use the word in non football conversation because they know it's not an appropriate word

The argument to keep the name seems weak to me. It's like "we've been doing this a long time and we really really don't mean any harm so who really cares what the actual Native Americans feel about it? I'm white and it seems fine to me."

Snyder won't change it until he feels the pinch is his wallet, then one he will have an epiphany and the name will be changed to something like the "Washington Monuments"

[Homegrown]

Snyder won't change it until he feels the pinch is his wallet, then one he will have an epiphany and the name will be changed to something like the "Washington Monuments"

I'd prefer the "Washington Bullets" ... oh wait!!, what??!!?

[trapezeus]

people who use the n word are rarely offended using it
people who are called the n word are offended by hearing it.

so this "only some people" are offended and ruining my ability to use it, is idiotic. It's the same arguements that were used in the 50s.

The funny thing is that native americans had their land stolen from them. The second you try and make them change their name, they feel threatened. i guess that's karma.

[stuckincincy]

You are kind of rambling here. There was a long process that was followed and both sides have presented their cases. "Cowboys" is not considered a racial slur, so I'm not sure how it is a relevant comparison. It is just a logical fallacy.

You cannot say that being called a "cowboy" is not a slur. And a slur need not be limited to "racial." You must recognize that the term "cracker" is indeed racial, but who is questioning when that is passed over, and "redskin" is not?

Free speech is the founding principle of our society. To quote Associate Justice Jackson in 1943, in a reply to Justice Felix Frankfurter:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principals to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship or assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Further on, Jackson said:

"Those who begin coersive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

Point out logical fallacies if you like. We all could be indicted of thus - in our daily casual speech. We would in a state of perpetual warfare if all utterances were subject to strict scrutiny without regard to context or intent. Which is often sadly the case in today's society. It's a bad game - avoid it.

This Patent Office decision is offensive. If it stands, if it is not fought I will be very dismayed but then will take it as a confirmation that the American experiment is failing fast.

Ben Franklin thought it would, in his remarks at the Constitutional Convention, 9/17/1787:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this constitution, with all its faults, because I think a general Government is necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what be a blessing to the people if well administrated, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administrated for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people have become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

Ginger P.: We elders are dying off, who remember what we were taught by our elders and those before them. History was taught for a reason, and these days, history is not taught for a reason. Pick up the torch.

I apologize for the lecture and the preaching.

.

[DraftBoy]

You cannot say that being called a "cowboy" is not a slur. And a slur need not be limited to "racial." You must recognize that the term "cracker" is indeed racial, but who is questioning when that is passed over, and "redskin" is not?

Free speech is the founding principle of our society. To quote Associate Justice Jackson in 1943, in a reply to Justice Felix Frankfurter:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principals to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship or assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Further on, Jackson said:

"Those who begin coersive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

Point out logical fallacies if you like. We all could be indicted of thus - in our daily casual speech. We would in a state of perpetual warfare if all utterances were subject to strict scrutiny without regard to context or intent. Which is often sadly the case in today's society. It's a bad game - avoid it.

This Patent Office decision is offensive. If it stands, if it is not fought I will be very dismayed but then will take it as a confirmation that the American experiment is failing fast.

Ben Franklin thought it would, in his remarks at the Constitutional Convention, on 9/17/178:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this constitution, with sall its faults, because I think a general Government is necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what be a blessing to the people if well administrated, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administrated for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people have become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

Ginger P.: We elders are dying off, who remember what we were taught by our elders and those before them. I apologize for the lecture and the preaching.

Pick up the torch...

1. Sure you can call Cowboy a non-racial slur, and nobody will care.
2. There are no professional teams named Cracker
3. This isn't a free speech issue and never has been
4. Your quotes don't make any sense nor do they have any relevance
5. The idea that American has been around since 1776 is still one of the world's super power but that changing the name of a football team would mean the American Experiment is dying is astronomically dumb and melodramatic

[stuckincincy]

1. Sure you can call Cowboy a non-racial slur, and nobody will care.
2. There are no professional teams named Cracker
3. This isn't a free speech issue and never has been
4. Your quotes don't make any sense nor do they have any relevance
5. The idea that American has been around since 1776 is still one of the world's super power but that changing the name of a football team would mean the American Experiment is dying is astronomically dumb and melodramatic

QED.

[Downinfloflo]

If my name was "Bill" Buffalo's football team would offend me.

[stuckincincy]

If my name was "Bill" Buffalo's football team would offend me.

Your name Dowininfloflo offends me. The Federal government must get involved, and punish you. :kid:

[DraftBoy]

QED.

WTF?

[Night Train]

Snyder will take it to court anyhow and drag this out, if it becomes a legal issue.

[WagonCircler]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The use of the word has evolved over time. Here's an article tracking the history of the word. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

I think there are 3 things true about the word that are not open to debate:

1) It has been used as an ethnic slur
2) Some Native Americans find it offensive
3) Even the folks that defend it's use would not use the word in non football conversation because they know it's not an appropriate word

Be honest. Have you ever, in your entire life, heard an actual person refer to another person as a redskin?

I've never even heard it in a movie, on TV, in a book or a magazine. It's absolute nonsense. It's a term NOBODY uses, and if anything, it is used in this context as representing heroic warriors, in much the same way as the term Vikings is used.

This is 100% political and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

[Bill Cody]

Snyder will take it to court anyhow and drag this out, if it becomes a legal issue.

Maybe. But at some point he has to ask himself "is this really worth it?"

[trapezeus]

it better be worth it to him. that's all he's got to connect to his fanbase. "i fought to keep your offensive nickname." He is hands down the worst performing owner in the NFL. he's meddlesome, trades picks, signs mega contracts to people who don't deserve it. he's been blessed to be in a division that has a good NYG team every 4-6 years and otherwise a mediocre set of 4 teams. otherwise in most other divisions, he'd have a bills like drought on his hands.


the group who is offended gets to say if its offensive or not.

[Bill Cody]

Be honest. Have you ever, in your entire life, heard an actual person refer to another person as a redskin?

I've never even heard it in a movie, on TV, in a book or a magazine. It's absolute nonsense. It's a term NOBODY uses, and if anything, it is used in this context as representing heroic warriors, in much the same way as the term Vikings is used.

This is 100% political and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

I haven't met any Native Americans so that would be hard. Certainly heard the term used in Westerns and usually not in a good way, also called "savages". I would hope nobody would use it, it's offensive! And that's why sooner or later the name will be changed!

[Generalissimus Gibby]

What always gets lost in this is that the name Redskins is not a reference to the skin color of "Native" Americans (who, by the way, emigrated from Mongolia--but I digress). It is a reference to a tribe whose warpaint was red. Yes, they painted their skin red.

There is absolutely NOTHING offensive about this, unless one is looking to be offended. The perceived slight is imagined.

This is nothing more than politically correct *********.

I am offended that you use facts, especially when they go against my PC bias.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

Be honest. Have you ever, in your entire life, heard an actual person refer to another person as a redskin?

I've never even heard it in a movie, on TV, in a book or a magazine. It's absolute nonsense. It's a term NOBODY uses, and if anything, it is used in this context as representing heroic warriors, in much the same way as the term Vikings is used.

This is 100% political and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

I have, Joe Theismann, Joe Gibbs, Art Monk, Jack Kent Cook, Mark Rypien, John Riggens, Billy Kilmer, Sonny Jurgenson, Hail I also know some others such as RGIII for instance.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

I haven't met any Native Americans so that would be hard. Certainly heard the term used in Westerns and usually not in a good way, also called "savages". I would hope nobody would use it, it's offensive! And that's why sooner or later the name will be changed!

About savages, well I would never use that word about a person, but well funny story I had a history prof who had me change the word savage to brutal when it was being used as an adjective to describe the Rape of Nanking, not exactly all that many Amer Indians involved in that one really.

[DraftBoy]

Be honest. Have you ever, in your entire life, heard an actual person refer to another person as a redskin?

I've never even heard it in a movie, on TV, in a book or a magazine. It's absolute nonsense. It's a term NOBODY uses, and if anything, it is used in this context as representing heroic warriors, in much the same way as the term Vikings is used.

This is 100% political and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

I have twice. One when I was much younger and the other just a couple of years ago.

That is completely irrelevant though.

[WagonCircler]

I have twice. One when I was much younger and the other just a couple of years ago.

That is completely irrelevant though.

Yes. Much younger. I'm sure you were hanging out with Gabby Hayes or Slim Pickens, sipping on a Sasparilla.

[feldspar]

Be honest. Have you ever, in your entire life, heard an actual person refer to another person as a redskin?

I've never even heard it in a movie, on TV, in a book or a magazine. It's absolute nonsense. It's a term NOBODY uses, and if anything, it is used in this context as representing heroic warriors, in much the same way as the term Vikings is used.

This is 100% political and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

In the movie "Escape From New York," when they were all trying to escape Manhattan on the Gulfire, a gang cut the glider down from the top of the World Trade Center.

Brain says "Goddamn Redskins! They're savages, Mr. President."

I agree with what you say though. Having a problem with "Redskins" is ridiculous to me.

[WagonCircler]

And another thing--TWO percent of the US population is Native American, and by most accounts, a huge majority has no problem with the name. We are talking about a minuscule group of people whose lives are in no way demonstrably affected by the Redskins use of the name.

It's self-promoting politicians who are offended and it's none of their God damn business.

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

[DraftBoy]

Considering its Congress that grants the NFL their antitrust exemption, this is their business.

[WagonCircler]

Considering its Congress that grants the NFL their antitrust exemption, this is their business.

It's Congress and the Executive Branch's responsibility to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land, but they fail miserably at that, too.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

That doesn't seem a sufficient definition - not of sufficient breadth - of due process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

That is more than sufficient due process for this level of deprivation.


And AFAIK, this 2 to 1 decision of an administrative office - not the judiciary, not our legislators - decided that WAS no longer had the Redskins trademark. Meaning that anyone can market products with that name.

The legislators specifically granted this authority to the USPTO. I linked part of the statute that gave them that power. And the judiciary hasn't ruled on this because it hasn't appeared in their court yet, as they won't hear a claim until a plaintiff has exhausted their administrative remedies first. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_remedies)

The last time it did appear in the federal courts, it was dumped on a technicality (laches).


It was a sneaky thing, surely perpetrated by you-know-who's political minions under his majesty's direction.

This fight has been going on for decades, long before Obama was a political figure of any kind. In fact, the PTO already ruled the name was offensive before, based on a claim filed in the 1990s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Football,_Inc._v._Harjo)


Will we see the Patent Office rule 2 - 1 to let the word "Cowboys" be severed from the Dallas club, because after all, calling somebody a "cowboy" can be a personal derogation?

No.

[OpIv37]

And another thing--TWO percent of the US population is Native American, and by most accounts, a huge majority has no problem with the name. We are talking about a minuscule group of people whose lives are in no way demonstrably affected by the Redskins use of the name.

It's self-promoting politicians who are offended and it's none of their God damn business.

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

Yeah and there was a time most of the country didn't think n----r was offensive either.

The majority isn't right simply because they're the majority.

[WagonCircler]

Yeah and there was a time most of the country didn't think n----r was offensive either.

The majority isn't right simply because they're the majority.

Nice straw man! Your comments bear zero relevance to my point, which is that a tiny, tiny, infinitesimal group are offended, and 90% of the people this issue allegedly offends DON'T FIND IT OFFENSIVE.

This is not about you. This is not about Harry ****** Reid. This is not even about RED skin, it's about thin skin, by a statistically insignificant group whose lives are not affected in the least by this.

The larger issue, and the one that should horrify all of us, is the sudden Orwellian urge to ban words and things that don't fit in with the current fashionable thought.

It starts with words. Next it's books. The next thing you know, the are giant propaganda signs where billboards used to be, featuring pictures of the "Dear Leader."

Don't think it can happen? You don't even have to ignore what happened in Germany or the Russia/Soviet Union or China. Just look off the southern tip of Florida.

Of course, you'd probably like that.

[OpIv37]

Nice straw man! Your comments bear zero relevance to my point, which is that a tiny, tiny, infinitesimal group are offended, and 90% of the people this issue allegedly offends DON'T FIND IT OFFENSIVE.

This is not about you. This is not about Harry ****** Reid. This is not even about RED skin, it's about thin skin, by a statistically insignificant group whose lives are not affected in the least by this.

The larger issue, and the one that should horrify all of us, is the sudden Orwellian urge to ban words and things that don't fit in with the current fashionable thought.

It starts with words. Next it's books. The next thing you know, the are giant propaganda signs where billboards used to be, featuring pictures of the "Dear Leader."

Don't think it can happen? You don't even have to ignore what happened in Germany or the Russia/Soviet Union or China. Just look off the southern tip of Florida.

Of course, you'd probably like that.
You're the one that brought up the fact that the majority isn't offended, then when I made a comment about the majority, you call it a staw man. Wtf? None of what you said there was in the post I quoted at all. You just completely changed your argument so you could accuse me of using the straw man.

And for the record, I didn't comment on whether I wanted the name changed or not. I just said that what the majority thinks is completely irrelevant because YOU made the majority argument.

Oh, and as long as we are on the topic of logical fallacies, google "slippery slope."

[WagonCircler]

You're the one that brought up the fact that the majority isn't offended, then when I made a comment about the majority, you call it a staw man. Wtf?"

I was talking about the n---- word part. Total apples and oranges situation. In every way possible.

And I don't have to Google "slippery slope" I just look at a newspaper and remember how people used to think that there was no way we'd ever have a totally lawless administration running the country. One that refuses to enforce immigration laws and selectively, unilaterally makes changes to laws. One that ignores laws and trades terrorists for deserters. And a "Justice" Department that refuses to prosecute cases that are politically inconvenient.

There was a time in this country when neither party would dream about ****** with the First Amendment. Now we have a regime that would love nothing more than to wipe out the entire Bill of Rights.

The shove off the slippery slope is commonly referred to as "hate speech." "Ban this word--it's hate speech. Ban this practice. This belief. This tradition. It's hate speech!"

[DraftBoy]

I was talking about the n---- word part. Total apples and oranges situation. In every way possible.

And I don't have to Google "slippery slope" I just look at a newspaper and remember how people used to think that there was no way we'd ever have a totally lawless administration running the country. One that refuses to enforce immigration laws and selectively, unilaterally makes changes to laws. One that ignores laws and trades terrorists for deserters. And a "Justice" Department that refuses to prosecute cases that are politically inconvenient.

There was a time in this country when neither party would dream about ****** with the First Amendment. Now we have a regime that would love nothing more than to wipe out the entire Bill of Rights.

The shove off the slippery slope is commonly referred to as "hate speech." "Ban this word--it's hate speech. Ban this practice. This belief. This tradition. It's hate speech!"

This also isn't about you or your view on the current government which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Also this isn't a first amendment issue, you're doing the same thing you're accusing Op of with a different fallacy.

[MidnightVoice]

I just look at a newspaper and remember how people used to think that there was no way we'd ever have a totally lawless administration running the country.

Surely anyone who lived through the Nixon and Bush years no longer thinks that way?

:D

[gebobs]

Wow! People are getting pretty defensive about this. Jesus. They lost their trademark. Big effing deal.

What's so sacrosanct about a stupid football team's unfortunate choice of a name that we insist on continuing this affront.

[Bill Cody]

Nice straw man! Your comments bear zero relevance to my point, which is that a tiny, tiny, infinitesimal group are offended, and 90% of the people this issue allegedly offends DON'T FIND IT OFFENSIVE.

Who did that poll, Fox News?


This is not about you. This is not about Harry ****** Reid. This is not even about RED skin, it's about thin skin, by a statistically insignificant group whose lives are not affected in the least by this.

It's not about you either. "Redskin" is considered a racial slur today. That should be enough of a reason not to use it. Do you really need polls or reach a certain number of people offended to not insult a whole race of people? That's dumb.


The larger issue, and the one that should horrify all of us, is the sudden Orwellian urge to ban words and things that don't fit in with the current fashionable thought.

It starts with words. Next it's books. The next thing you know, the are giant propaganda signs where billboards used to be, featuring pictures of the "Dear Leader."

Don't think it can happen? You don't even have to ignore what happened in Germany or the Russia/Soviet Union or China. Just look off the southern tip of Florida.

Of course, you'd probably like that.

No words have been banned but nice speech. If upheld this would just make it harder for the team to profit from the use of a racial slur. Makes sense to me. Pretty sure either way it turns out we're not turning into facists or whatever warped fantasies you and the tin foil hat crowd imagine. Dozens of teams have changed their teams names from Indian references over the last 30 years or so and the world kept spinning quite nicely.

[gebobs]

Be honest. Have you ever, in your entire life, heard an actual person refer to another person as a redskin?

If your next door neighbor was an Ojib, I suppose you wouldn't have a problem calling him a redskin.

[stuckincincy]

We have to change the name of the State of Oklahoma. It means "red people" in Choctaw...okala humma. The name came from the Choctaw chief at the time, Alan Wright:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Wright

Then there is ND's "Fighting Irish." That's disparaging to the Irish culture, promoting the idea that the Irish are innately violent.

Sooner or later, as the ethnic cleansing progresses, we will get around to Cheektowaga. :surf:

[better days]

We have to change the name of the State of Oklahoma. It means "red people" in Choctaw...okala humma. The name came from the Choctaw chief at the time, Alan Wright:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Wright

Then there is ND's "Fighting Irish." That's disparaging to the Irish culture, promoting the idea that the Irish are innately violent.

Sooner or later, as the ethnic cleansing progresses, we will get around to Cheektowaga. :surf:

Well, as someone that is second generation half Irish, I can say we are innately violent.

[stuckincincy]

BD, I'm glad you finally came clean. :kid:

[DraftBoy]

We have to change the name of the State of Oklahoma. It means "red people" in Choctaw...okala humma. The name came from the Choctaw chief at the time, Alan Wright:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Wright

Not relevant.


Then there is ND's "Fighting Irish." That's disparaging to the Irish culture, promoting the idea that the Irish are innately violent.

A fallacy


Sooner or later, as the ethnic cleansing progresses, we will get around to Cheektowaga. :surf:

See response 1.

[MikeInRoch]

This is 100% political and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Yes, because it's very important to win over the powerful Native American lobby.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

We have to change the name of the State of Oklahoma. It means "red people" in Choctaw...okala humma. The name came from the Choctaw chief at the time, Alan Wright:

You know we have changed place names when the times changed. Squaw Tit Peak in Arizona was renamed Piestawa Peak after the woman who died in Iraq in the same ambush where Jessica Lynch was captured. That's not to say Oklahoma is one of those names, but the idea is not new.


Then there is ND's "Fighting Irish." That's disparaging to the Irish culture, promoting the idea that the Irish are innately violent.

You're grasping.


Sooner or later, as the ethnic cleansing progresses, we will get around to Cheektowaga. :surf:

What is with the melodrama?

[Novacane]

Yeah and there was a time most of the country didn't think n----r was offensive either.

The majority isn't right simply because they're the majority.



Bull ****! The Knew it was offensive and that's why they used it.

[WagonCircler]

Yes, because it's very important to win over the powerful Native American lobby.

That's just the point. This has nothing to do with the six dozen offended native Americans. It has everything to do with the ass wipes of the "Ban Bossy" ilk. Their goal (or, I should say, your goal) is pure 1984 thought and language police.

In a span of less than four years we went from Dear Leader Obama supporting the Defense of Marriage act to a bizarro world in which a baker is forced to close is business for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.

All you have to do is say that anyone who disagrees with you is "bullying you" and the world cracks at its core.

We, the taxpayers, are paying for the facing SEX CHANGE of a convicted treasonist while an active duty Marine rots in a Mexican prison for making a wrong turn.

Our worthless piece of siht President ignores the advice of everyone on both sides of the aisle and give Iraq back to the terrorists, while destroying evidence in a case that makes Nixon's sins look like a day at the beach, while arming the Muslim Brotherhood, and the focus of the government is to banish a word that's never even used in common discourse.

We have become a nation of hypersensitive pussies, thanks to people like you. Congratulations.

[stuckincincy]

Not relevant.



A fallacy



See response 1.

Why are you so bent on parsing things? Just so you can say you are right? Please consider the larger picture...a government entity - 2 people as it turns out - deciding that a business gets their trademark protection stripped because those 2 people think that the WAS name is "disparaging?" Ask about why they were so motivated, what pressure was put upon them, who did that. And why.

You are not coming off as a citizen that sees that such nonsense for what it is, what a corrosive thing this is, but as a martinet.

I suggest you look up and read Pastor Martin Neimoller's words.

[OpIv37]

So, essentially you just used this issue to springboard into an ill-informed Fox News robot rant. Got it.

[WagonCircler]

So, essentially you just used this issue to springboard into an ill-informed Fox News robot rant. Got it.

This whole situation is political. Purely, 100% political, just like every decision made by the criminals running this country while you lick their balls.

Keep slurpin'!

[OpIv37]

Why are you so bent on parsing things? Just so you can say you are right? Please consider the larger picture...a government entity - 2 people as it turns out - deciding that a business gets their trademark protection stripped because those 2 people think that the WAS name is "disparaging?" Ask about why they were so motivated, what pressure was put upon them, who did that. And why.

You are not coming off as a citizen that sees that such nonsense for what it is, what a corrosive thing this is, but as a martinet.

I suggest you look up and read Pastor Martin Neimoller's words.

In the long run, this only affects a group with limited lobbying power, or one football team. You are paranoid if you think powerful people are going out of their way over something that's trivial in terms of the big picture.

[OpIv37]

This whole situation is political. Purely, 100% political, just like every decision made by the criminals running this country while you lick their balls.

Keep slurpin'!

You just resorted to the "you lick balls" response. That speaks volumes to how thoroughly you just got thrashed in this thread.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

This whole situation is political. Purely, 100% political, just like every decision made by the criminals running this country while you lick their balls.

Keep slurpin'!

The USPTO already said this was offensive in the early 2000's, before Obama was even a senator. The fight to change the name has been going on in the courts since at least the early 1990's and unofficially since the 1980's.

[stuckincincy]

What has Fox news have to do with this? What an idiotic statement, what a tossing up of a straw man.

Get the idea: your fellow CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBS fawners are in lock step with you in tearing down rights of speech and expression.

This generation, the one before is, have been fed and scooped up so much propaganda, have been so indoctrinated in their schooling, that you have no idea what is happening to you. Cameras everywhere, license plates read, cell phones monitored, facial recognition, and so on. Thousands upon thousands of laws and edicts.

I pity you. You and yours are going to live under an iron-handed regime, one that you and others in ignorance and self-love invited it in.

Bon Apetitit.


And get rid of your avatar. It's disparaging.

[DraftBoy]

Why are you so bent on parsing things? Just so you can say you are right? Please consider the larger picture...a government entity - 2 people as it turns out - deciding that a business gets their trademark protection stripped because those 2 people think that the WAS name is "disparaging?" Ask about why they were so motivated, what pressure was put upon them, who did that. And why.

Because the ability to have an actual cognitive thought and use critical thinking skills has become a loss art form. People would rather appeal the dumbest common denominator by eliciting grand emotional responses rather than reasoned rational ones. I could care less about being "right", that's a idiotic idea to begin with.

The larger picture is this, we have a NFL team that uses a racial slur as its name. The government which provides its anti-trust exemption has already stated its wants the name changed. This same action happened about 20-30 years ago and the Redskins won on appeal in court. That's the extent of the larger picture. There is no grand injustice going on, America is not falling off a proverbial cliff. A trademark was revoked (that will likely get overturned) and a NFL team may have to change its name. What I'd rather ask is why you, or anybody, really want to use the name at all?


You are not coming off as a citizen that sees that such nonsense for what it is, what a corrosive thing this is, but as a martinet.

I have no desire to ever come off as a citizen that shares that view because its neither logical nor rational.


I suggest you look up and read Pastor Martin Neimoller's words.

I'm assuming you're referring to his poem First They Came? I don't think the good Pastor really had in mind comparing a NFL changing its name to an entire race being exterminated when he wrote that one.

[DraftBoy]

What has Fox news have to do with this? What an idiotic statement, what a tossing up of a straw man.

Get the idea: your fellow CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBS fawners are in lock step with you in tearing down rights of speech and expression.

This generation, the one before is, have been fed and scooped up so much propaganda, have been so indoctrinated in their schooling, that you have no idea what is happening to you. Cameras everywhere, license plates read, cell phones monitored, facial recognition, and so on. Thousands upon thousands of laws and edicts.

I pity you. You and yours are going to live under an iron-handed regime, one that you and others in ignorance and self-love invited it in.

Bon Apetitit.


And get rid of your avatar. It's disparaging.

Can you share with the class how your right to speech or expression is being infringed here? Please be detailed in your explanation.

[stuckincincy]

Because the ability to have an actual cognitive thought and use critical thinking skills has become a loss art form. People would rather appeal the dumbest common denominator by eliciting grand emotional responses rather than reasoned rational ones. I could care less about being "right", that's a idiotic idea to begin with.

The larger picture is this, we have a NFL team that uses a racial slur as its name. The government which provides its anti-trust exemption has already stated its wants the name changed. This same action happened about 20-30 years ago and the Redskins won on appeal in court. That's the extent of the larger picture. There is no grand injustice going on, America is not falling off a proverbial cliff. A trademark was revoked (that will likely get overturned) and a NFL team may have to change its name. What I'd rather ask is why you, or anybody, really want to use the name at all?

I'm assuming you're referring to his poem First They Came? I don't think the good Pastor really had in mind comparing a NFL changing its name to an entire race being exterminated when he wrote that one.

Are you assuming that the name "redskins" is a racial slur? Tell me how said racial slur causes tangible damage. I grew up in WNY. Never heard a Seneca bring up the term "redskin." I had plenty of Seneca friends. Not a peep.

Can't you conceive that this is a manufactured issue?

[MikeInRoch]

Get the idea: your fellow CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBS fawners are in lock step with you in tearing down rights of speech and expression.

Name one way in which this ruling tears down rights of speech and expression.

- - - Updated - - -


Can you share with the class how your right to speech or expression is being infringed here? Please be detailed in your explanation.

Dammit you beat me to it.

[stuckincincy]

Can you share with the class how your right to speech or expression is being infringed here? Please be detailed in your explanation.

Detail is not needed. Nowhere in my posting did I say that my right of expression was inhibited. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is noted. Try another tack.

Also noted - the crack, can you share with the class - an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, which usually rears its' head when when the vanity of a respondent is challenged. So formualaic - high school debate club stuff.

[sukie]

Is Redskins and the logo more offensive that the cartoon Cleveland Indian? In this tradmark cancellation all NFL teams lose. Washington gear can be garage produced and sold at will without the fees collected and split by all NFL teams.

[DraftBoy]

Are you assuming that the name "redskins" is a racial slur? Tell me how said racial slur causes tangible damage. I grew up in WNY. Never heard a Seneca bring up the term "redskin." I had plenty of Seneca friends. Not a peep.

Can't you conceive that this is a manufactured issue?

Nope.

You're going to respond with the etymology claims and I'm going to counter back that you can't begin to count the number of words that originally meant one thing and later began to mean something else.

In the end you're going to rely on "personal experiences" as a presentation of empirical evidence and refuse to acknowledge any point to the contrary.

Politco posted 8 of the multiple examples the group of Native Americans provided to the US Patent Office in their grievance as to why the term is a slur, again this is only 8 of the examples;
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/washington-redskins-trademark-ruling-108025.html

[DraftBoy]

Detail is not needed. Nowhere in my posting did I say that my right of expression was inhibited. Your attempt to put words in my mouth is noted. Try another tack.

Also noted - the crack, can you share with the class - an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, which usually rears its' head when when the vanity of a respondent is challenged. So formualaic - high school debate club stuff.

But you did say this...

Get the idea: your fellow CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBS fawners are in lock step with you in tearing down rights of speech and expression.

So would you like to try and take another crack at trying to get out of explaining what you can't explain? The problem here is that you're a smart guy and you know this has nothing to do with speech or expression. You choose the emotional appeal to the dumbest denominator and you can't defend it because you know what the First Amendment says and what it applies to and you know it has nothing to do with this.

So do you really want to continue this game of cat and mouse, or would you just like to move on?

Also reductio ad absurdum would only apply if I was trying to make a statement true by showing yours to be false. Since I present no statement as true your attempt to paint my question and comment as a fallacy is incorrect.

[swiper]

Aye-yi-yi

[gebobs]

You know we have changed place names when the times changed. Squaw Tit Peak in Arizona was renamed Piestawa Peak after the woman who died in Iraq in the same ambush where Jessica Lynch was captured.
And there's a bill in Congress to rename Frenchman (gasp) Mountain after Reagan. And there was a video out at its introduction of a congressman satirically mocking the GOP fetish for naming all things after Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Ronald_Reagan). His solution was just we should rename the planet Reagania.

[stuckincincy]

But you did say this...


So would you like to try and take another crack at trying to get out of explaining what you can't explain? The problem here is that you're a smart guy and you know this has nothing to do with speech or expression. You choose the emotional appeal to the dumbest denominator and you can't defend it because you know what the First Amendment says and what it applies to and you know it has nothing to do with this.

So do you really want to continue this game of cat and mouse, or would you just like to move on?

Also reductio ad absurdum would only apply if I was trying to make a statement true by showing yours to be false. Since I present no statement as true your attempt to paint my question and comment as a fallacy is incorrect.

Unbelivable...you are drowning in your own Kool-Aid.

[gebobs]

Are you assuming that the name "redskins" is a racial slur? Tell me how said racial slur causes tangible damage.
Tangibility is not a relevant criteria. What tangible damage does any racial slur cause? Do you think its appropriate for a team to be called Wetbacks, or Beaners, or N!66ers?


I grew up in WNY. Never heard a Seneca bring up the term "redskin." I had plenty of Seneca friends. Not a peep.
Go out and have a few beers with them and then call them redskins. See how they take it.

[DraftBoy]

Unbelivable...you are drowning in your own Kool-Aid.

Ok...

[stuckincincy]

I've had a few beers with Senecas since the '60's. How about you? What is your personal experience, if any? Tell us true.

[gebobs]

Is Redskins and the logo more offensive that the cartoon Cleveland Indian?

Hell no. That logo is awful. And not just because its offensive to native Americans. It conjures up 70 years of absolutely brutal baseball.

[gebobs]

I've had a few beers with Senecas since the '60's. How about you? What is your personal experience, if any? Tell us true.
Played a lot of lax back in the day. In WNY and up in Ontario. You better believe if we called an Ojib a redskin, it wasn't intended or taken as a compliment. And one risked ones teeth in the act.

But you go ahead and call up your old buddies and have that beer. Call them redskins and report back here how it goes, k?

[stuckincincy]

Played a lot of lax back in the day. In WNY and up in Ontario. You better believe if we called an Ojib a redskin, it wasn't intended or taken as a compliment. And one risked ones teeth in the act.

But you go ahead and call up your old buddies and have that beer. Call them redskins and report back here how it goes, k?

Back in what day?...what was yours? 2005? Now you tell me that I should call my Seneca friends redskins, and give some nonsense about your so -called Ojibs. Whole cloth. Look up the expression.

And then tell me to run back to Bflo or call, hunt up these old friends of mine, and attempt to insult them, to satisfy your mind.

You are pretty good at telling others what they should do, general electric bob.

Stop it.

Look around at today's society - conflict, belittlement, crowing. The slightest disagreement becomes a crisis. Punches thrown over a mere slight. Folks saying things to each other that were unheard of in times past. Young folks that have been petted to the point that they can't accept any setback, then resort to violence, suicide, bullying. In "my" day, we boys had jacknives in our pockets, but there was no tragedies. Guns were abundantly available - before the GCA 68 - the Gun Act of 1968 - you could mail order guns. I bought a shotgun from Sears when I was 16. My local drugstore sold ammunition. And there was no Colombine. Don't try to accuse me of getting off the point - I was relating observations. I've commented on previous posts about folks picking out this or that detail while ignoring the general idea of a post.

Listen to me carefully, gebobs. I'm decrepit and 1 foot out of the ditch. And I know that civility is a very thin crust. Don't think for one minute that we elders don't know what is going on, don't think for one minute that we are not pained about things today that you and other younger folks face.

This is your world. Choose wisely.

As for me, I'm done with this thread. If folks want to construct arguments that there are exceptions to free speech other than the legendary shouting of "fire" in the theater, so be it.

[The Jokeman]

There would be no discussion at all whether Blackskins, Jewnoses or Whitescalps are offensive in 2014.

So the question is if they just make it the Washington Reds but keep all their same images is it still offensive?

[DraftBoy]

So the question is if they just make it the Washington Reds but keep all their same images is it still offensive?

I'm not 100% sure but I believe the images were not part of the trademark that was cancelled but I'm not sure.

[swiper]

So the question is if they just make it the Washington Reds but keep all their same images is it still offensive?

Why can't they call themselves the Washington Indians and keep the colors/logos the same?

[Parzival]

For the people against changing the name...do you think that if Washington was an expansion team there would be ANY chance they would still be the red skins?

[JoeMama]

****in' Redskins!

First they steal our land by getting here before we did.

Now THIS.

This was a great country once. Before the Injuns strong-armed their way into our US Patent Office.

[Homegrown]

So the question is if they just make it the Washington Reds but keep all their same images is it still offensive?

Yes, to communist it would be ...

[The Jokeman]

For the people against changing the name...do you think that if Washington was an expansion team there would be ANY chance they would still be the red skins?

And one could argue by forcing the Redskins to change their name you're taking away their first amendment rights. While I don't think it's the best name and nothing I'd call a person to their face we're also talking about a name brand. By forcing the Redskins to be renamed what's to stop someone then calling for and/or suing a cracker manufacturer and/or forced to be be renamed because of the slur associated with the word? To me it's all about educating people that it's a racially offensive term when not in the context of the football team. As to be honest when I hear Redskins sure I think of their logo but when I see a story about Native Americans do I immediately think of the term Redskins? Nope.

[DraftBoy]

And one could argue by forcing the Redskins to change their name you're taking away their first amendment rights. While I don't think it's the best name and nothing I'd call a person to their face we're also talking about a name brand. By forcing the Redskins to be renamed what's to stop someone then calling for and/or suing a cracker manufacturer and/or forced to be be renamed because of the slur associated with the word? To me it's all about educating people that it's a racially offensive term when not in the context of the football team. As to be honest when I hear Redskins sure I think of their logo but when I see a story about Native Americans do I immediately think of the term Redskins? Nope.

No you cannot.

[Parzival]

And one could argue by forcing the Redskins to change their name you're taking away their first amendment rights. While I don't think it's the best name and nothing I'd call a person to their face we're also talking about a name brand. By forcing the Redskins to be renamed what's to stop someone then calling for and/or suing a cracker manufacturer and/or forced to be be renamed because of the slur associated with the word? To me it's all about educating people that it's a racially offensive term when not in the context of the football team. As to be honest when I hear Redskins sure I think of their logo but when I see a story about Native Americans do I immediately think of the term Redskins? Nope.

Draftboy beat me so enjoy this meme!

16933

[Historian]

I always thought it was an homage to the warrior type spirit.

[YardRat]

I'm liking Warriors more and more.

Regardless of what side of the fence anybody sits on, it's become a big enough public issue that something is going to have to be done eventually...it is what it is. Might as well move forward right now voluntarily instead of holding out until you barely have a thread to hang on.

[Jan Reimers]

"Redskins" is the long-time nickname of a football team, not a racial slur. The name obviously is meant to depict fierce warriors or brave fighters, not to denigrate Native Americans.

This is one more case, in our new, ultra-sensitive society, of political correctness overpowering common sense.

[DraftBoy]

"Redskins" is the long-time nickname of a football team, not a racial slur. The name obviously is meant to depict fierce warriors or brave fighters, not to denigrate Native Americans.

This is one more case, in our new, ultra-sensitive society, of political correctness overpowering common sense.

Which is your opinion, however the Native American group that brought the grievance disagrees with what you think it means and the US Patent Office agreed with them.

This doesn't have anything to do with an ultra-sensitive society or being PC. A complaint was formally filed with examples presented of how it was considered denigrating to Native Americans and after a review the US Patent Office agreed. The Redskins can now appeal and we'll see where it goes from there.

Its not like the name change is being forced through a legislative act banning the word.

[mikemac2001]

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=9689220&src=desktop

Old article but goes into how some high schools with 90% native Americans use the same nickname with pride

[OpIv37]

And one could argue by forcing the Redskins to change their name you're taking away their first amendment rights. While I don't think it's the best name and nothing I'd call a person to their face we're also talking about a name brand. By forcing the Redskins to be renamed what's to stop someone then calling for and/or suing a cracker manufacturer and/or forced to be be renamed because of the slur associated with the word? To me it's all about educating people that it's a racially offensive term when not in the context of the football team. As to be honest when I hear Redskins sure I think of their logo but when I see a story about Native Americans do I immediately think of the term Redskins? Nope.

Huge flaw in your argument: they aren't being forced to change the name. The government won't give them trademark protection for it, but they are not trying to forcibly stop the team from using the name. Trademarks get denied for a variety of reasons every day. A right to free speech is not the same as a echo to trademark protection.

[Bill Cody]

Tangibility is not a relevant criteria. What tangible damage does any racial slur cause? Do you think its appropriate for a team to be called Wetbacks, or Beaners, or N!66ers?


Go out and have a few beers with them and then call them redskins. See how they take it.

That's it in a nutshell. Well put.

[sukie]

Washington Casino Owners...

[Bill Cody]

"Redskins" is the long-time nickname of a football team, not a racial slur. The name obviously is meant to depict fierce warriors or brave fighters, not to denigrate Native Americans.

This is one more case, in our new, ultra-sensitive society, of political correctness overpowering common sense.

Ok Jan let's imagine you're having a cookout and you invite your neighbors, including a native American family. The Native Americans arrives late. When they arrive would you be comfortable introducing them to the rest of your guests as "these are the Ahawi's, they're the redskins that live on the corner of Maple". Yes or no? If not, why not, it's a compliment right?

Mr Ahawi: "who you calling redskins"?

Jan: "I mean no offense, it's a term of affection, I mean an NFL team is named Redskins"

Mr. Ahawi: "oh okay great, thanks brother"

[sukie]

What if the family last name was SOX? It would be offensive calling them the red sox from down the street. Or if they were caucazoid... White sox. It's all in how it's used.

Sambo's was a nice restaurant but a book and perception I think gave us Denny's

[trapezeus]

if it doesn't offend you, then why do you care if the name changes? these conservatives who just argue, "because that's the way it is" lose most of the arguements when that's their defense. That's not the world people want to live in. and when progress can be made to not even have the question of being offensive in a effing football team's name, you should make that change.

you want to defend being a bigot and offensive because that simply was the way it was? for the rest of the country and frankly the majority, people are trying to be more inclusive and supportive of one another. the people who aren't on that train will be left in their little hick worlds and die out.

the world is about change and adapting to it. stop being a bitter old person and get with it.

[DynaPaul]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

Leave it to The Onion to sum it up.

[gebobs]

What if the family last name was SOX? It would be offensive calling them the red sox from down the street. Or if they were caucazoid... White sox. It's all in how it's used.
When trying to show how stupid another view is, try not to double down on the stupid.

[gebobs]

Back in what day?...what was yours?
70's and 80's.


Now you tell me that I should call my Seneca friends redskins, and give some nonsense about your so -called Ojibs. Whole cloth. Look up the expression.

And then tell me to run back to Bflo or call, hunt up these old friends of mine, and attempt to insult them, to satisfy your mind.
This may not be a familiar term to you, but this is called a "thought experiment". You don't really have to go through with it and call some native American a redskin to see if you offend him or not. It's intended to provoke a thought or an opinion.


You are pretty good at telling others what they should do, general electric bob.
Uh...wrong.


Look around at today's society - conflict, belittlement, crowing. The slightest disagreement becomes a crisis. Punches thrown over a mere slight. Folks saying things to each other that were unheard of in times past. Young folks that have been petted to the point that they can't accept any setback, then resort to violence, suicide, bullying. In "my" day, we boys had jacknives in our pockets, but there was no tragedies. Guns were abundantly available - before the GCA 68 - the Gun Act of 1968 - you could mail order guns. I bought a shotgun from Sears when I was 16. My local drugstore sold ammunition. And there was no Colombine. Don't try to accuse me of getting off the point - I was relating observations. I've commented on previous posts about folks picking out this or that detail while ignoring the general idea of a post.
Da***? Let's stick to the topic, k?


Listen to me carefully, gebobs. I'm decrepit and 1 foot out of the ditch. And I know that civility is a very thin crust. Don't think for one minute that we elders don't know what is going on, don't think for one minute that we are not pained about things today that you and other younger folks face.
You must be old as dust if you consider me younger.


As for me, I'm done with this thread.
See ya.

[Bill Cody]

What if the family last name was SOX? It would be offensive calling them the red sox from down the street. Or if they were caucazoid... White sox. It's all in how it's used.

Sambo's was a nice restaurant but a book and perception I think gave us Denny's

some deep thinking there. I'd send your thoughts over to Dan Snyder's legal team, this should get the ruling overturned.

[sukie]

some deep thinking there. I'd send your thoughts over to Dan Snyder's legal team, this should get the ruling overturned.
Please do. Having a team name "REDSKINS" is not the same as referring to a family as "the resdskins" down the block.

[gebobs]

Please do. Having a team name "REDSKINS" is not the same as referring to a family as "the resdskins" down the block.

I propose that the University of Florida change their name from Gators to Gator Baits. Cuz having a team name Gator Baits is not like actually chaining a slave by the shore of an Everglades swamp to attract alligators.

[Bill Cody]

Please do. Having a team name "REDSKINS" is not the same as referring to a family as "the resdskins" down the block.

Ok gotcha. So having a team name "NIG*ERS" would be ok?

[sukie]

Ok gotcha. So having a team name "NIG*ERS" would be ok?
Negroes would be okay.

[Bill Cody]

Negroes would be okay.

with you maybe. It makes me laugh that conservative white people think they're the arbiter of what is or isn't offensive in this country.

[OpIv37]

Negroes would be okay.

Ok, I nominate you to go to the 'hood in Anacostia and ask the mostly black residents how they feel about renaming the team the "Washington Negroes" because "Redskins" is too offensive.

[Mike13]

Its a racist name for a team, given by a notoriously racist piece of ****: George Preston Marshall.

And the infamous Annenberg poll was hilariously (http://ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/)flawed. (http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2012/12/annenbergs-redskins-survey.html)

[sukie]

Ok, I nominate you to go to the 'hood in Anacostia and ask the mostly black residents how they feel about renaming the team the "Washington Negroes" because "Redskins" is too offensive.
Are you claiming negroes as an offensive term? If so start the petition against the "united college fund" bearing the name

[swiper]

Its a racist name for a team, given by a notoriously racist piece of ****: George Preston Marshall.

And the infamous Annenberg poll was hilariously (http://ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/)flawed. (http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2012/12/annenbergs-redskins-survey.html)

"A 2004 poll is too old to matter" ???

Really? That is an asinine claim. And to lead with it is a failure. It's absolutely not too old to matter.

[gebobs]

Are you claiming negroes as an offensive term? If so start the petition against the "united college fund" bearing the name

So based solely on this anachronism, from which the UNCF is divesting itself, you think renaming the Redskins the Negroes would be acceptable? Seriously? Either you're being argumentative or you're not nearly as smart as I thought you were.

[swiper]

Maybe he's exaggerating to try and make a point?

[gebobs]

Maybe he's exaggerating to try and make a point?

Gee, ya think? Which is why I called him on it.

[gebobs]

"A 2004 poll is too old to matter" ???
Generally speaking, yes.


And to lead with it is a failure
They don't lead with it because it's the most important reason. They lead with it because it's a preamble saying why any poll, otherwise flawed or not, has a half-life. The 1o bullets go into why it's flawed to cite the survey as evidence that NA's embrace the term as much as that hook-nosed heeb Snyder would have you believe.

[DraftBoy]

"A 2004 poll is too old to matter" ???

Really? That is an asinine claim. And to lead with it is a failure. It's absolutely not too old to matter.

Yes really. A decade old poll is way too old.

[gebobs]

Although the I can't seem to find the original survey, the above article by Mike13 states in the fifth point that the original question was "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?"

That alone may be sufficient to invalidate the results.

[gebobs]

Should we rely on polls, even recent polls, to tell us that naming a team, a team that represents the nation's capital no less, is appropriate or not? Where's the firmament when public perception is so volatile that few even bother to think that Redskin or Chief Wahoo are offensive 50 years ago but today make significant numbers of the population cringe?

It seems to me that's a big reason why many people have gotten defensive about the Redskins. If Redskins is offensive now, what next? And if public perception about Redskins is negative now, who is to say opinion might not shift ten years from now and the name will become acceptable again?

[sukie]

So based solely on this anachronism, from which the UNCF is divesting itself, you think renaming the Redskins the Negroes would be acceptable? Seriously? Either you're being argumentative or you're not nearly as smart as I thought you were.

If the name stayed redskins but the logo was completely redone to rid itself af all native american references would there still be a problem?

UNCF isn't divesting too rapidly since tv commercials are currently runnig with the name not only dislpayed but spoken.

[DraftBoy]

If the name stayed redskins but the logo was completely redone to rid itself af all native american references would there still be a problem?

UNCF isn't divesting too rapidly since tv commercials are currently runnig with the name not only dislpayed but spoken.

The issue isn't the logo, so yes there would still be a problem.

[sukie]

The issue isn't the logo, so yes there would still be a problem.
So the problem is "skins"?

[gebobs]

If the name stayed redskins but the logo was completely redone to rid itself of all native american references would there still be a problem?
You betcha.


UNCF isn't divesting too rapidly since tv commercials are currently runnig with the name not only dislpayed but spoken.
So what? Let me ask once more and since I've politely answered your question, maybe you will do me the courtesy of the same. Do you think renaming the Redskins the Negroes would be acceptable?

[BuffaloRedleg]

Victim-hood is exulted in this country.

Everything seems to be one big race to be outraged about something and claim offense.

Whether it's being outraged by the original offense, or being outraged by the outrage, or being outraged about political correctness... or whatever else is blowing up my facebook news feed every day...

I'm pretty much sick of it. People aren't happy unless they are unhappy about something nowadays.

[gebobs]

Everything seems to be one big race to be outraged about something and claim offense.
Such is living in a pluralistic and somewhat egalitarian society where one group once held sway and is seeing its hegemony dissolve. This too shall pass.

[BuffaloRedleg]

Such is living in a pluralistic and somewhat egalitarian society where one group once held sway and is seeing its hegemony dissolve. This too shall pass.

I'm starting to think it is only going to get worse. Maybe that's just what every generation thinks, that theirs is going to be the one where the levee breaks.

There is just too much white noise and I think we as a society are unable to handle it. When even the "tough old-school conservatives" start blubbering like 16 year old girls about stuff we may have reached a tipping point. Social media only makes things worse and it is making people angrier and angrier as the internet becomes a tool for confirmation bias rather than real knowledge and understanding.

[JoeMama]

Draftboy beat me so enjoy this meme!

16933

****ing awesome.

[JoeMama]

I hate the redskins.

And the team too!

The name is hilarious. It's a racial slur that we're sort of comfortable with in an antiquated way, so we're inclined to let it slide. It's not super offensive in the same vein as n^gger, sp^c, or ch^nk. Those are names we wouldn't dream of naming a team. It's more in the ballpark defending a franchise called the New York Negros or the Chicago Charlies.

It's not monstrous but it's still a bad look.

And since Washington beat us in the Superbowl, my inner puerile impulse is that it would be awesome if we they were forced to rename themselves something lame like the Washington Rainbows or the Washington Unicorns.

Cuz **** Washington and Dan Synder and their whole franchise.

I'm not heavily invested in this topic one way or another but this thread has been kind of amusing. So it's not entirely a wash.

[WagonCircler]

Negroes would be okay.

This is a perfect, George Carlinesque example of how absurd we've become as a society.

The acceptable term for the past few decades for a group of people has been "black." The term "Negro" has fallen out of favor and is now considered a redial slur which, if uttered, could cost you your career. It could ruin your reputation.

They're the same God damned word. They mean the same God damned thing. Negro, in one form or another in the romance languages, means black.

They're WORDS. They don't have sharp edges that can pierce your skin. They aren't blunt instruments that can give you a concussion. They are sounds and shapes. They only have power over you to the extent that you let them.

And if you are such a pussy that you let them, you pretty much deserve to be hurt.

[BuffaloRedleg]

This is a perfect, George Carlinesque example of how absurd we've become as a society.

The acceptable term for the past few decades for a group of people has been "black." The term "Negro" has fallen out of favor and is now considered a redial slur which, if uttered, could cost you your career. It could ruin your reputation.

They're the same God damned word. They mean the same God damned thing. Negro, in one form or another in the romance languages, means black.

They're WORDS. They don't have sharp edges that can pierce your skin. They aren't blunt instruments that can give you a concussion. They are sounds and shapes. They only have power over you to the extent that you let them.

And if you are such a pussy that you let them, you pretty much deserve to be hurt.

I like the George Carlin comparison and I'm with you, people are absolutely just looking for a reason to be outraged these days.

I guess I'm just exhausted from it all. I'm inclined to let them just have it with this one because I just can't argue these petty things over and over. They are going to win eventually so it is pointless to get worked up over the Redskins name. Words do have meaning outside of their intent, I concede that, but at what point do we draw the line on what people "decide is offensive" vs what "is offensive". That matters, but neither side really wants to talk about it in any sort of beneficial manner. Just a lot of yelling and accusations and offense being taken.

I think words can be offensive, and it's not just the responsibility of the listener to "take it like a man" when he hears something he doesn't like. There has to be a balance... I don't think Carlin ever advocated n^gger, j^wbag, w^tback, wop or any slurs. His comment was about the concept of a curse word being silly, not about offensive slurs (if i remember correctly, haven't seen the bit in a while). Like JoeMama said, Redskin is so cartoonish it is actually more humorous and quaint than anything else. I'm not even sure it is a slur, and it's certainly not a slur that anyone has used in a long long time. Whatever. This battle is lost and I'm not sure it is even worth fighting, Native Americans rarely get thrown a bone so I'm not going to make my stand here.

Louis CK has a great bit about the word "f^gg^t" that he gets away with because he is Louis CK, but the tide is turning against that mentality. The problem is that this country is still working through the issues of racism/sexism/homophobia and we have not yet developed a common language to even have the conversation about these things (nor is anyone even trying). If you don't completely sign off on these things you are considered a bigot and until we get over that it's just going to be a lot of yelling and getting offended on both sides so I'm just not going to participate in it. You really can't win either way.

The country has become like a Bills forum arguing about JP Losman vs Kelly Holcomb.

[DraftBoy]

So the problem is "skins"?

No...

[YardRat]

You have to admit sukie has a valid point. If using the term Negro is offensive if used as a team name, why isn't it's use offensive in other ways?

If a group organized a United Redskin College Fund for Native Americans, would that moniker be acceptable?

[DraftBoy]

You have to admit sukie has a valid point. If using the term Negro is offensive if used as a team name, why isn't it's use offensive in other ways?

You think so huh? How often do you refer to black people as Negros to their face?


If a group organized a United Redskin College Fund for Native Americans, would that moniker be acceptable?

Is the group Native American? Because while you may not like the difference or double standard it does exist.

[YardRat]

You think so huh? How often do you refer to black people as Negros to their face?



Is the group Native American? Because while you may not like the difference or double standard it does exist.

So, as far as you are concerned, terms themselves aren't necessarily offensive, and the level of offensiveness is determined by who uses them and how.

If Shania Twain, Val Kilmer, or Wayne Newton bought the Washington NFL team and wished to retain the mascot 'Redskins', it would be acceptable under those circumstances?

[WagonCircler]

I think words can be offensive, and it's not just the responsibility of the listener to "take it like a man" when he hears something he doesn't like. There has to be a balance... I don't think Carlin ever advocated n^gger, j^wbag, w^tback, wop or any slurs. His comment was about the concept of a curse word being silly, not about offensive slurs (if i remember correctly, haven't seen the bit in a while). Like JoeMama said, Redskin is so cartoonish it is actually more humorous and quaint than anything else. I'm not even sure it is a slur, and it's certainly not a slur that anyone has used in a long long time. Whatever. This battle is lost and I'm not sure it is even worth fighting, Native Americans rarely get thrown a bone so I'm not going to make my stand here..

You totally miss Carlin's point, which was to highlight the inanity of banning words. The bit was called "The 7 words you can't say on TV" and its point was to show how silly it was to treat words as though the are toxic or dangerous.

And the battle against the Thought Police is always worth fighting, because there's no end to what rights they'll take from you. It starts with restricting words or terms that seem silly or quaint, but those who would ban words or books have an insatiable need to control what you say, think and believe.

[DraftBoy]

So, as far as you are concerned, terms themselves aren't necessarily offensive, and the level of offensiveness is determined by who uses them and how.

Nope.


If Shania Twain, Val Kilmer, or Wayne Newton bought the Washington NFL team and wished to retain the mascot 'Redskins', it would be acceptable under those circumstances?

And Nope.

[DraftBoy]

You totally miss Carlin's point, which was to highlight the inanity of banning words. The bit was called "The 7 words you can't say on TV" and its point was to show how silly it was to treat words as though the are toxic or dangerous.

And the battle against the Thought Police is always worth fighting, because there's no end to what rights they'll take from you. It starts with restricting words or terms that seem silly or quaint, but those who would ban words or books have an insatiable need to control what you say, think and believe.


Yes but its a battle you automatically concede when you take Carlin's stance.

[Bill Cody]

You totally miss Carlin's point, which was to highlight the inanity of banning words. The bit was called "The 7 words you can't say on TV" and its point was to show how silly it was to treat words as though the are toxic or dangerous.

And the battle against the Thought Police is always worth fighting, because there's no end to what rights they'll take from you. It starts with restricting words or terms that seem silly or quaint, but those who would ban words or books have an insatiable need to control what you say, think and believe.

No words are being banned. Drama queens like you are always making stuff up to make your point. And words can be hurtful. You should know that better than anyone because you use insults against fellow members more than just about anyone on this board. The Washington team is free to call themselves what they want and they're free to keep the name. But the name they chose is denigrating and it should be changed IMHO.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

It's worth noting that nobody is actually banning the Redskins from keeping the name, the USPTO are just refusing to grant them the protection of a trademark to prevent others from selling REDSKINS gear.

[DraftBoy]

It's worth noting that nobody is actually banning the Redskins from keeping the name, the USPTO are just refusing to grant them the protection of a trademark to prevent others from selling REDSKINS gear.

No, no, no we must go off all half-cocked and act like we are watching the very fabric of society erode before our very eyes on every situation.

[sukie]

One could take the Cleveland football team name as offensive

[Figster]

How does Washington Redcoats sound fellas,


Keep the red, keep the Indian, British don't have a say, this is the USA


what say ye? :topdog2:

[IlluminatusUIUC]

One could take the Cleveland football team name as offensive

It's not reference to an ethnic group.

[gebobs]

You totally miss Carlin's point, which was to highlight the inanity of banning words. The bit was called "The 7 words you can't say on TV" and its point was to show how silly it was to treat words as though the are toxic or dangerous.
This is not banning in any way, shape or form. A trademark has been revoked and there is a grassroots movement to bring pressure to bear on the team that calls its home the nation's capital to change its name to something...anything...that is not a slur against a citizen minority.


And the battle against the Thought Police is always worth fighting, because there's no end to what rights they'll take from you. It starts with restricting words or terms that seem silly or quaint, but those who would ban words or books have an insatiable need to control what you say, think and believe.
Completely irrelevant to the topic on hand and hopelessly hyperbolic. No rights are being taken away But a valiant effort, Don Quixote. Keep tilting at those windmills.

[gebobs]

One could take the Cleveland football team name as offensive

The name isn't. The logo is.

[WagonCircler]

It's worth noting that nobody is actually banning the Redskins from keeping the name, the USPTO are just refusing to grant them the protection of a trademark to prevent others from selling REDSKINS gear.

...in a balls out effort to pressure the Redskins into changing their name.

Spare me your hair splitting.

[WagonCircler]

This is not banning in any way, shape or form. A trademark has been revoked and there is a grassroots movement to bring pressure to bear on the team that calls its home the nation's capital to change its name to something...anything...that is not a slur against a citizen minority.


Completely irrelevant to the topic on hand and hopelessly hyperbolic. No rights are being taken away But a valiant effort, Don Quixote. Keep tilting at those windmills.

Like I said to Illuminatus, it is an effort to ban by controlling. If they can't yet overturn the First Amendment (not for a lack of effort) as swipe progressives will use any means at their disposal to limit, squelch, chill, silence speech that runs afoul of their dogma.

The fascism of the left is totally relevant to the topic.

[Bill Cody]

One could take the Cleveland football team name as offensive

Really? Ever hear of Paul Brown?

[DraftBoy]

If they can't yet overturn the First Amendment (not for a lack of effort)

For the love of God...

[stuckincincy]

For the love of God...

God has nothing to do with this. It's about the Administration not facing the issue - such at it is - but them cooking up a smarmy way to gin up votes. Hit them with economic pressure. Use the law (there are thousands and thousands) to do an end run. See also "Operation Choke Point."

And you have consistently tried to diminish what is going on, more or less ridiculed folks that have concerns about free speech.

[OpIv37]

God has nothing to do with this. It's about the Administration not facing the issue - such at it is - but them cooking up a smarmy way to gin up votes. Hit them with economic pressure. Use the law (there are thousands and thousands) to do an end run. See also "Operation Choke Point."

And you have consistently tried to diminish what is going on, more or less ridiculed folks that have concerns about free speech.
It is not a free speech issue because trademarks are not a right guaranteed by the first amendment. There is a larger social issue of a group or section or society creating social consequences for speech they don't like, which is scary, but again not a free speech issue. Some of you seem to have no concept of what "free speech" actually means.

As far as the administrationtrying "gin up votes," that doesn't even make sense. Obama can't run again, and it's absurd to think that people are going to vote for other Democrats just because Obama supposedly used back door influence to attempt to convince the Redskins to change their name. It's so convoluted. If using influence to get votes is the goal, there are far easier and more straightforward ways to do it.

[DraftBoy]

God has nothing to do with this. It's about the Administration not facing the issue - such at it is - but them cooking up a smarmy way to gin up votes. Hit them with economic pressure. Use the law (there are thousands and thousands) to do an end run. See also "Operation Choke Point."

And you have consistently tried to diminish what is going on, more or less ridiculed folks that have concerns about free speech.

What Administration and what issue?

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, if you feel diminished by me saying that then you need to go back to the Bills of Rights and read it again and repeat.

- - - Updated - - -


It is not a free speech issue because trademarks are not a right guaranteed by the first amendment. There is a larger social issue of a group or section or society creating social consequences for speech they don't like, which is scary, but again not a free speech issue. Some of you seem to have no concept of what "free speech" actually means.

As far as the administrationtrying "gin up votes," that doesn't even make sense. Obama can't run again, and it's absurd to think that people are going to vote for other Democrats just because Obama supposedly used back door influence to attempt to convince the Redskins to change their name. It's so convoluted. If using influence to get votes is the goal, there are far easier and more straightforward ways to do it.

"Some" is being kind.

[Bill Cody]

God has nothing to do with this. It's about the Administration not facing the issue - such at it is - but them cooking up a smarmy way to gin up votes. Hit them with economic pressure. Use the law (there are thousands and thousands) to do an end run. See also "Operation Choke Point."

And you have consistently tried to diminish what is going on, more or less ridiculed folks that have concerns about free speech.

As has been pointed out before in this thread the patent issue goes back decades. If you feel you're being ridiculed you're not. People are just pointing out that it's not ok to make stuff up.

[BuffaloRedleg]

I kind of wonder why if words cannot be innately offensive, and it is the responsibility of the listener to choose whether or not to be offended, why being called a "bigot" gets peoples panties in a bunch so much.

[YardRat]

Words can be innately offensive, if by definition or association they carry a negative connotation.

[DraftBoy]

Words can be innately offensive, if by definition or association they carry a negative connotation.

And is it your position that this word is innately offensive?

[sukie]

Really? Ever hear of Paul Brown?

I know where the name comes from... but it could be offensive

[BillsOverDolphins]

Hopefully this will lose traction when the media stops caring about it, like that ugly dyke who tried to get women access to The Masters.

[BillsOverDolphins]

I kind of wonder why if words cannot be innately offensive, and it is the responsibility of the listener to choose whether or not to be offended, why being called a "bigot" gets peoples panties in a bunch so much.

Sup dude, it's the Ghost of DBP Present...i'm flying out to Shindand tonight then I'm off to Leatherneck tomorrow for coverage...gonna miss KAF, as strange as that sounds

[Bill Cody]

I know where the name comes from... but it could be offensive

only if people deliberately chose to be misinformed and then ignored the facts when they were explained, no one would do that....oh wait...I see where you're going with this...do you mean Fox viewers?

[BuffaloRedleg]

Sup dude, it's the Ghost of DBP Present...i'm flying out to Shindand tonight then I'm off to Leatherneck tomorrow for coverage...gonna miss KAF, as strange as that sounds

Good luck man. Never been down to Leatherneck but I'm damn familiar with the fight that goes on down there. I imagine you'll be busy, stay safe.

[gebobs]

Like I said to Illuminatus, it is an effort to ban by controlling.
No it's not.

[Bill Cody]

Hopefully this will lose traction when the media stops caring about it, like that ugly dyke who tried to get women access to The Masters.

women have always had access to the Masters. I assume what you really meant was Augusta National did not allow women members. Perhaps the media stopped caring about that because...now they have a female member, Condalisa Rice.

[WagonCircler]

The most important aspect in all of this is to evaluate the intended use of the word. I haven't heard one account from anyone who seriously thinks that the Washington NFL team is intentionally using a slur toward Native Americans.

So it's all about context. As though a non African American were to make a donation to the United Negro College Fund. While many of you leftist whiners would wail and gnash your teeth that an evil caucasian had the unmitigated gall to use the actual name of the organization, rather than some idiotic new age edited version, only an idiot would accuse said caucasian of making a slur.

Not only do the Washington Redskins glorify the indigenous Warriors, there's a 100% Cherokee High School that uses the team name Warriors for the same reason.

Again, the name comes from a tribe whose warriors PAINTED their skin red for battle. Anyone taking offense at that is seeking to be offended.

And it's no accident that the loudest protestor is Harry Reid, and suddenly government agencies have joined the assault. (Hmmm, where have we heard that before?)

Purely political. Period.

[gebobs]

The most important aspect in all of this is to evaluate the intended use of the word. I haven't heard one account from anyone who seriously thinks that the Washington NFL team is intentionally using a slur toward Native Americans.
You want intent? Go to the source. The guy that named them, George Preston Marshall, was known as the worst racist in the NFL, even back then. Funny bit in his wiki page..."legendary writer Shirley Povich, who sarcastically used terms from the civil rights movement and related court cases to describe games: for instance, he once wrote that Jim Brown 'integrated' the end zone, making the score 'separate but unequal'."

[gebobs]

WC...why are you so defensive about this? What's it to you?

Why can't we just do a restart? Their team's name is a racial slur. Why do you need to hold onto that? This isn't anything you need to be proud of so much that you need to defend it like the damned reb flag. Give it up.

What? You think you're defending the Constitution? Or that ahole owner's "rights"? Please tell me there's something deeper. Please tell me this is more than just your fantasy of the gubmint coming to take your words away. Because that's just effing stupid.

[OpIv37]

The most important aspect in all of this is to evaluate the intended use of the word. I haven't heard one account from anyone who seriously thinks that the Washington NFL team is intentionally using a slur toward Native Americans.

Words can have multiple meanings, and meanings can change. Just because the name wasn't originally intended as a racial slur doesn't mean it isn't one.




Not only do the Washington Redskins glorify the indigenous Warriors, there's a 100% Cherokee High School that uses the team name Warriors for the same reason.


Wait, what? You are defending the name "Redskins" because there's a Cherokee school that uses the name "Warriors"? They're not the same name. This makes ZERO sense.

[YardRat]

And is it your position that this word is innately offensive?

Admittedly, I have a difficult time finding the word 'redskin' to be innately offensive, but I understand that's only because it's so deeply associated to the football team, and ingrained on my NFL soul. If we were playing a word-association game, and the challenge was 'redskin', my immediate response would be 'Washington' or 'Theisman' or 'Riggins'...not 'Indian' or 'Native American'. Taking football completely out of the equation, though, and trying to look at it objectively, yes I would probably consider the term to be innately offensive, just like the 'n' word, the 'c' word, and specific usage of the 'r' word.

[Bill Cody]

The most important aspect in all of this is to evaluate the intended use of the word. I haven't heard one account from anyone who seriously thinks that the Washington NFL team is intentionally using a slur toward Native Americans.

So it's all about context. As though a non African American were to make a donation to the United Negro College Fund. While many of you leftist whiners would wail and gnash your teeth that an evil caucasian had the unmitigated gall to use the actual name of the organization, rather than some idiotic new age edited version, only an idiot would accuse said caucasian of making a slur.

Not only do the Washington Redskins glorify the indigenous Warriors, there's a 100% Cherokee High School that uses the team name Warriors for the same reason.

Again, the name comes from a tribe whose warriors PAINTED their skin red for battle. Anyone taking offense at that is seeking to be offended.

And it's no accident that the loudest protestor is Harry Reid, and suddenly government agencies have joined the assault. (Hmmm, where have we heard that before?)

Purely political. Period.

The original action to remove the trademark protection began in 1992 by a group of native Americans. They actually lost the trademark in 1999 but won it back on appeal. But feel free to keep up your fake narrative.

If it's all about honoring warriors then call them warriors not redskins. You don't honor black people by calling them nig*ers.

[OpIv37]

The original action to remove the trademark protection began in 1992 by a group of native Americans. They actually lost the trademark in 1999 but won it back on appeal. But feel free to keep up your fake narrative.

If it's all about honoring warriors then call them warriors not redskins. You don't honor black people by calling them nig*ers.
According to WagonCircler, you do honor black by calling a team the Nig*ers as long as you say that you are using the name to honor them and not to insult them. So there.

The Brooklyn Nets should rename themselves the Brooklyn Money-grubbing Jews. You know, not as an insult but to honor the financial success of the Jewish people in the NYC area.