• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Redskins, the patent office, zero complaints: Politifact vs. Conservative Media

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
72,681
Reaction score
30,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Does the name Joe have a cultural history as a racially derogatory term?
Does the name 'Chief'? You dont get it. It doesnt MATTER to the people filing the suits. It doesnt matter to them that 90% of Indians dont agree with them. It doesnt matter that an Indian designed their logo or that their name and logo was endorsed by the national organization of tribal chieftans. It doesnt matter that it is so non offensive that majority Indian high schools have it as their own team names. So quit whining about it and change your name to pacify and mollify the Nez Perce and the handful of politically driven Native Americans (not Indians).
 

GhostlyJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,285
Location
here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Does the name 'Chief'? You dont get it. It doesnt MATTER to the people filing the suits. It doesnt matter to them that 90% of Indians dont agree with them. It doesnt matter that an Indian designed their logo or that their name and logo was endorsed by the national organization of tribal chieftans. It doesnt matter that it is so non offensive that majority Indian high schools have it as their own team names. So quit whining about it and change your name to pacify and mollify the Nez Perce and the handful of politically driven Native Americans (not Indians).
Again, your stance seems more about the perceived motives of the people involved. Does it matter if they're politically motivated? Does it matter if Hobby Lobby was politically motivated? Does it change the veracity of the arguments made? I also question the validity of the numbers you're throwing around.

A more nuanced understanding of the issue might help.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're not winning much sympathy for your position from me by dragging the Steelers into this :p But I do understand the point you're trying to make. The city of Cleveland petitioned hard to retain the name Browns when Modell shipped out to Baltimore -- and tradition and cultural pride was the cornerstone of Cleveland's argument. But I do think the cultural history of the term Redskins matters in this case and changes the math a bit, and I firmly believe Pittsburgh, Green Bay and Washington would all recover from a name change. I can certainly attest that Steelers fans are connected to the place more than the name.
I guess it depends what you mean by recover

Continue to exist and be profitable? Absolutely

Continuing to be one of the two or three most valuable nfl teams, if not top three in all us pro sports? I think that's much less certain
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,161
Reaction score
21,236
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
OK...but one-its pretty weak to claim that a case from 1992, one that was already resolved, has any relative bearing on a decision 22 years later.
1. The case has bearing because it's the same exact case taken up by new people.
2. No one put the cases' bearing in question. What is being questioned is that there were no complaints. There clearly were.

Also...none of your comments are inconsistent with what was cited in the article.

"In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling."

This is a proven true statement based on the FOIA info released. Immediately following in the article it states
Not it isn't because the FOIA request isn't the only factor in considering if there was or wasn't communication. Essentially, your argument is like saying "Every apple is red because I've only ever seen red apples". It's nonsense and demonstrably false if someone shows you an apple of another color.

"The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians."

There is no way you can read that article and claim it is dishonest. There ARE no complaints from the public by people offended by the nickname. There was (and has been) legal challenges (very different from a "complaint by the public").
Those legal challenges can only be brought up if there is a complaint. Are you serious?

If you sat at home and were just really offended and sent in a letter, it would be a complaint by the public.
And such complaints were voice at different public hearings in the 90s. I've already demonstrated this.

The patent office has received none of those (unless they are lying). If you were truly butthurt and got a lawyer and filed a suit it would not be a 'complaint by the public', it would be a legal challenge. Thats not even semantics...its just factual.
And yet, the article claims any communication not some guy writing a letter. There had been communication between the public as far back as the 90s.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
72,681
Reaction score
30,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Again, your stance seems more about the perceived motives of the people involved. Does it matter if they're politically motivated? Does it matter if Hobby Lobby was politically motivated? Does it change the veracity of the arguments made? I also question the validity of the numbers you're throwing around.

A more nuanced understanding of the issue might help.
Oh good lord...of COURSE it matters. That IS the entire point. You seem to think that everyone should bow down to a politically motivated jagoff. Thats just silly.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
72,681
Reaction score
30,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. The case has bearing because it's the same exact case taken up by new people.
2. No one put the cases' bearing in question. What is being questioned is that there were no complaints. There clearly were.



Not it isn't because the FOIA request isn't the only factor in considering if there was or wasn't communication. Essentially, your argument is like saying "Every apple is red because I've only ever seen red apples". It's nonsense and demonstrably false if someone shows you an apple of another color.



Those legal challenges can only be brought up if there is a complaint. Are you serious?



And such complaints were voice at different public hearings in the 90s. I've already demonstrated this.



And yet, the article claims any communication not some guy writing a letter. There had been communication between the public as far back as the 90s.
The exact same case, thrown out once already by a judge.

The point remains the same. Public complaints are absolutely NOT legal challenges. The article is very clear and it very honestly explains the difference. You can make it be something its not...but it is what it is.
 

GhostlyJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,285
Location
here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I guess it depends what you mean by recover

Continue to exist and be profitable? Absolutely

Continuing to be one of the two or three most valuable nfl teams, if not top three in all us pro sports? I think that's much less certain
You could be right. Dan Snyder might end up the big loser in this regardless.
 

GhostlyJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,285
Location
here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Oh good lord...of COURSE it matters. That IS the entire point. You seem to think that everyone should bow down to a politically motivated jagoff. Thats just silly.
The political motivation is merely presumption. You act as though no one can be legitimately offended by what is widely acknowledged as a racial epithet.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
72,681
Reaction score
30,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The political motivation is merely presumption. You act as though no one can be legitimately offended by what is widely acknowledged as a racial epithet.
She has already announced her intent. It has nothing to do with insult or if she is even offended. 90% of Indians ARENT offended. Do you know what IS offensive? pretending to be insulted and ignoring the extremes in poverty, unemployment, failed education, drugs, violence, teen pregnancy, sexual assault, domestic violence, and every other category that is literally killing the Indian community.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,161
Reaction score
21,236
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The exact same case, thrown out once already by a judge.

The point remains the same. Public complaints are absolutely NOT legal challenges.
According to the law and the USPTO's policy? A legal challenge comes with a public complaint.

The article is very clear and it very honestly explains the difference. You can make it be something its not...but it is what it is.
No, it really doesn't. Show us the article's mention the USPTO's policy on public complaints and how the FOIA request reflected all possible areas where a complaint can be filed. You can't. Because if you did you'd realize you're wrong, you'd realize that in the grand scheme of things, a guy writing a "Omgz Zee Redskins" type of letter, it wouldn't have changed a damn thing in the decision making process.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
72,681
Reaction score
30,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
According to the law and the USPTO's policy? A legal challenge comes with a public complaint.



No, it really doesn't. Show us the article's mention the USPTO's policy on public complaints and how the FOIA request reflected all possible areas where a complaint can be filed. You can't. Because if you did you'd realize you're wrong, you'd realize that in the grand scheme of things, a guy writing a "Omgz Zee Redskins" type of letter, it wouldn't have changed a damn thing in the decision making process.
At BEST you can cite ONE...count em...ONE public complaint since the same complaint leveled 22 years ago. Not by people truly offended but a politically motivated complaint (from the person who is mightily offended by the name 'Chiefs' and has announced her intent to target them next).

Talk about your ZOMG....
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,161
Reaction score
21,236
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
At BEST you can cite ONE...count em...ONE public complaint since the same complaint leveled 22 years ago.
Yes, that makes this statement:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name.
Demonstrably false.
 

Mr.Nick

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Politifact recently decided to evaluate and rule on the following story/claim:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name.

It is the one and only story that Politifact has fact checked that evaluates the validity of the "zero complaints" claim and just so there are no misunderstandings, let me make some things clear:

1. Evaluating that claim is legitimate and completely valid.
2. This issue is a political one and their ruling has political implications for those on both sides of the Redskins issue.
3. This review also has the potential to negatively effect the credibility of certain conservative media organizations.

Politifact ruled that the claim was "False", but I have concluded that their evaluation displays a clear liberal bias on their part, and does so in several different ways.


Perception

Here is the headline from Politifact's front page:


View attachment 67169692

As you see they rate the "received zero complaints" claim as false, and use their subheading to further substantiate that rating by saying "Except for the complaint that started this case". (take note of the subheading, as it will come into play in the future)

People arriving at the Politifact website who haven't yet read the actual article, or who choose not to read it, are sent a very clear, cut-and-dry message through that headline. It tells them that both the story and the claim are false and the patent office did in fact receive public complaints about the Redskins name, prior to making their ruling.


Political implications

That headline and subsequent ruling bode well for those on the political left who believe the name is offensive and should be changed, and harms the reputation and credibility of the Washington Times, since they are the ones who broke the story. It also harms the reputation and credibility of the media outlets and conservative pundits who chose to run with the story.


Methodology - Sources used to evaluate the claim

The original story which made headlines on July 1st was titled "Patent office did’t receive a single public complaint before stripping Redskins trademark" and was published by the conservative leaning newspaper The Washington Times. You would think that if Politifact wanted to fact check the story and the "zero complaints" claim, they would use the original article that was written by the Washington Times to do so... but that isn't what they did.

Politifact decided they would fact check the claim by evaluating the opinions written about the story on the internet by various conservative bloggers, rather than using the actual article written by the newspaper that originally broke the story in the first place. The reason they chose to evaluate the claim in this way, will become clear shortly.



Politifact's ruling and the flaws behind it:


Conservative blog posts smell a scandal in the cancellation of the Washington Redskins trademark, pointing out that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about it before an administrative law court ruled in June.

The case was opened because someone complained -- so that assertion is wrong on its face.

But even that aside, the post is misleading in suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process when they are not.

When people have a problem with patents and trademarks and want them removed, they file formal complaints, prove their standing in the case, pay a fee, and provide evidence to support their case.

In other words, they do exactly what the five plaintiffs in this case did here.

We rate the claim False.


So Politifact rules the claim that the patent office "received zero complaints" as "False" based on 2 reasons. That the 5 Native American's who filed the legal challenge qualify as a "complaint" and because they claim an opinion posted on the Conservative Tribune blog misled readers by suggesting that public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process.

The first reason is flawed because it's public knowledge that 5 Native Americans filed a formal complaint challenging the renewal of the trademark, which led to the USPTO review in the first place. Plus the blog even linked to the original story they were commenting on, which made that perfectly clear... So it's obvious that both the blog and the Washington Times were saying "zero complaints other than the formal complaint that started all of this", because they assumed their readers were fully knowledgeable of the controversy, including the USTPO ruling and the factors that led to it... This is a case of Politifact choosing to omit logic and common sense.

The second reason isn't flawed, it's just flat out incorrect, as well as being totally irrelevant to the validity of the quote. Nowhere in the post made by the Conservative Tribune blog, in the post they quoted from the Weasel Zippers blog, or in the original story from the Washington Times, was it ever implied in any way that "public comments are part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office process". That is a completely false claim by Politifact... but even if bought into their assertion, it would still have nothing to do with whether the "zero complaints" claim was true or not. Their headline and subheading on their front page simply says that the claim that the patent office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name, is false, and any implications based on that claim are totally irrelevant.


(continued)
This whole "name change non sense" should really be left alone...... As a die hard Chicago Blachawks fan I would love too see these PC fools even attempt the Hawks name.....That would be just too funny.... these fools damn well know they damn will NEVER be able to change the team name or jersey.... Hawks fans - and hockey fans in general would riot - and us Hawks fans are not know for that behavior unlike the NUCKS.... if anything the Natives LOVE the jersey and sport it proudly, however that hasn't stopped WHITE progressives from attempting to flame it as "racially insensitivity" haha.

This "Red Skins" controversy really pisses me off....... I have had it with the bunch of elitist rich from the North East that are so PC they have to insert their reverse bigotry into situations where their opinions aren't welcome - or are stirred up by WHITE elitists who want to destroy history (just like every totalitarian dictator) that would rather have a team named after me ore their pseudo-social-justicie leagues.

Who do progressives think they are the end all of sports heritage? -- half of these sick clowns weren't even born yet, hell their parents weren't even born yet when these names were manifested - and in 99.9 the names were to pray tribute to those cultures, teams and tribes.......Apparently someone is racist here and it's not the Ball clubs singled out.
 
Top Bottom