- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
LOL. Yeah, the Hawks don't get much press out east. Their defense did something only one other team ever has done. Led the league in the trifecta of defensive stats.
Fewest points allowed.
Fewest yards allowed.
Most turnovers.
The other team? 85 Bears.
LOB!
As a White person I find Cracker barrel racist.
I don't know if you meant to make a funny or not, but this made me laugh out loud. Well done!
And yeah I'm also white and am offended by that name. That & "Easy Blonde" are both now on my **** list. I need to get 4 of my blonde friends to agree, and I'm going to the Patent Office.
There's a world of difference between a tribes name and a racial slur. And remember, the Native Americans were kind of genocided and Washington DC was the capital of the country that did the bulk of the killing and land theft. The Redskins most rabid fans call themselves the "Hogs", they could easily change their name to the Pigskins, and everyone calls them the 'skins anyway.
It's hard to imagine a team name being more offensive. You'd have to have something like a Football team in Rowanda calling themselves the Inyenzis to come close.
No problem- lots of Irishmen in the USA.
And quite a few who claim to be Irish.
I lean left on quite a few things however I find this whole thing retarded. They pulled the same crap here with Chief Illiniwek who was the official mascot and symbol of the University of Illinois until 2007. He was deemed offensive. Totally stupid.I don't know if you meant to make a funny or not, but this made me laugh out loud. Well done!
And yeah I'm also white and am offended by that name. That & "Easy Blonde" are both now on my **** list. I need to get 4 of my blonde friends to agree, and I'm going to the Patent Office.
I don't know if you meant to make a funny or not, but this made me laugh out loud. Well done!
And yeah I'm also white and am offended by that name. That & "Easy Blonde" are both now on my **** list. I need to get 4 of my blonde friends to agree, and I'm going to the Patent Office.
No, but that's a different question.
People have the right to be offended, and some people are simply hyper-sensitive. We, however, as a society at-large, should recognize this and not pander to it. For example, I have heard people say that discrimination is "whatever the receiver says it is". That's patently absurd. There needs to be some baseline for society to work with.
I lean left on quite a few things however I find this whole thing retarded. They pulled the same crap here with Chief Illiniwek who was the official mascot and symbol of the University of Illinois until 2007. He was deemed offensive. Totally stupid.
I'm not offended, but I thought the Cracker Barrel comment was hilarious. :lamo
If I didn't have so many true life examples of my own blonde stereotypes being true, I'd have to agree on the blonde stuff, but I exemplify the stereotype. Thank goodness I can laugh at myself, as I've pulled some real doozies. :lol:
And even if the was offensive or demeaned or belittle what of it? That is no basis for formulating law.
You can argue that if the name is offensive to enough people the owner should change it out of respect to their sensibilities. But as a matter of law, or government regulation? Nope. Goes too far.T
These decisions shouldn't be made on whether or not a name is offensive. That's FAR too subjective a standard as people are prone to be offended by damned near anything and it opens the door for claims of offense solely for political or economic reasons.
The standard needs to be one of whether or not the trademark causes substantial harm to the general public or to public order.
But you agree that the name is pretty offensive right?These decisions shouldn't be made on whether or not a name is offensive. That's FAR too subjective a standard as people are prone to be offended by damned near anything and it opens the door for claims of offense solely for political or economic reasons.
The standard needs to be one of whether or not the trademark causes substantial harm to the general public or to public order.
But why? So long as there are no artificial barriers to choices, opportunities, access imposed by our public institutions, why do we need any other baseline at all?
But you agree that the name is pretty offensive right?
I know, I know, it sounds so nice and wonderful. Ok, we don't have baselines at all... and we get crap like this thread topic. Be careful what you wish for.
Why? WHY is it offensive?
Dan Snyder might want to give the name change some more thought at this point in time. While I think it's pure thought police idiocy that this happened, maybe his team will stop being such losers if he changes the name to something different. Like The Washington Cavalry.
I am beginning to think that "political correctness" is just something invented by white people to keep non-white people distracted and let everyone think they are winning some battle for rights, while the actual oppression against them continues.
Offensive is subjective. To 90+% of Native Americans, Redskins is not offensive. You can find a tiny minority who are offended by everything.Is that a serious question? Um... Go to a reservation and start calling people "redskins". I'm pretty sure that if you then googled offensive the first thing that would pop up is a picture of you calling a Native American a redskin.
It's a racist slur.
I mean, feel free to defend the skins rights to be offensive; but pretending that it's not offensive is just wishful thinking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?