Page 44 of 45 FirstFirst ... 42434445 LastLast
Results 517 to 528 of 536
  1. #517
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    It's ironic at best for the Army to kill all the indians and then name one of its most advanced weapons systems after them. Same as the town Indy. The army killed all the plains indians in the area and then named the city after them - Indiannapolis. See pics below.

    Also, it was the indians that saved the Pilgrams at Plymouth. They all would have died (half did) but they fed them and showed them how to grow corn and preserve it. Then the white man killed them all.


    JUST KILL ALL THE INDIANS AND BE DONE WITH THEM.

    GENERAL SHERMAN TO PRESIDENT GRANT.


    http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...PLAINS+INDIANS
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-03-2014 at 01:11 PM.





  2. #518

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    And the slippery slope zombie refuses to die...

    The frivolity of one complaint in no way diminishes the legitimacy of an unrelated complaint. It is simply not enough to assert, with no supporting argument of any kind, that the one necessarily begets the other.

    Each should be adjudicated on its own merits: accordingly, a complaint regarding a racial slur, emblematic of hundreds of years of systematic racism, should be adjudged valid. A complaint regarding innocuous historical terms which (as far as I can tell) carry no denotation or connotation of systematic racism seems much less valid.

    The point is, to shift the focus from a legitimate to (what appears to me) to be illegitimate complaint by claiming that the former necessarily begets the latter is simply a logical and rhetorical fallacy--and it's usually used as a desperation tactic when one side no longer has facts or reason to fall back on.
    The covering-the-ears-while-humming zombie refuses to die. The idea that this clown's manufactured, misinformed complaint just occurred out of thin air rather than as a result of him succumbing to the latest grievance 'fad' is simply absurd.

    Indeed each has to be judged on its own merits. And the point is, as soon as one realizes that both spring from the same unserious, sanctimonious political movement, one is in a better position to judge the merits and discuss possible solutions.

    There is nothing whatsoever derogatory about the usage of the word Redskin in the context of naming a sports team. Nothing. One does not name their team after something to be ridiculed or mocked, and why in the world would one do that?

    Groups of letters are neutral, context and intent matters. The Redskins are claiming they are honoring American Indians with the name, because Redskins are fierce and brave warriors. There is no evidence that they are lying, and plenty of evidence and common sense supporting the truth of their claim.

    And there is scant evidence anyone is truly offended by the name as long as one dismisses the sudden influx of people feigning offense for the sake of political gain or political approval. And this includes the opinion of the small American Indian population as well.

    No, this piece about the military names is spawned from the exact same place as the football team name complaint. The exact same place. Yes, it is a more idiotic version, no one claimed otherwise, but the impetus was the same.





  3. #519
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    The covering-the-ears-while-humming zombie refuses to die. The idea that this clown's manufactured, misinformed complaint just occurred out of thin air rather than as a result of him succumbing to the latest grievance 'fad' is simply absurd.

    Indeed each has to be judged on its own merits. And the point is, as soon as one realizes that both spring from the same unserious, sanctimonious political movement, one is in a better position to judge the merits and discuss possible solutions.

    There is nothing whatsoever derogatory about the usage of the word Redskin in the context of naming a sports team. Nothing. One does not name their team after something to be ridiculed or mocked, and why in the world would one do that?

    Groups of letters are neutral, context and intent matters. The Redskins are claiming they are honoring American Indians with the name, because Redskins are fierce and brave warriors. There is no evidence that they are lying, and plenty of evidence and common sense supporting the truth of their claim.

    And there is scant evidence anyone is truly offended by the name as long as one dismisses the sudden influx of people feigning offense for the sake of political gain or political approval. And this includes the opinion of the small American Indian population as well.

    No, this piece about the military names is spawned from the exact same place as the football team name complaint. The exact same place. Yes, it is a more idiotic version, no one claimed otherwise, but the impetus was the same.
    Troof.





  4. #520

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    And the slippery slope zombie refuses to die...

    The frivolity of one complaint in no way diminishes the legitimacy of an unrelated complaint. It is simply not enough to assert, with no supporting argument of any kind, that the one necessarily begets the other.

    Each should be adjudicated on its own merits: accordingly, a complaint regarding a racial slur, emblematic of hundreds of years of systematic racism, should be adjudged valid. A complaint regarding innocuous historical terms which (as far as I can tell) carry no denotation or connotation of systematic racism seems much less valid.

    The point is, to shift the focus from a legitimate to (what appears to me) to be illegitimate complaint by claiming that the former necessarily begets the latter is simply a logical and rhetorical fallacy--and it's usually used as a desperation tactic when one side no longer has facts or reason to fall back on.
    Very well put. Some people just don't get it. Some people just don't want to get it. It's all good I guess. It's truly sad, but that's the world we live in.





  5. #521

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    And the slippery slope zombie refuses to die...

    The frivolity of one complaint in no way diminishes the legitimacy of an unrelated complaint. It is simply not enough to assert, with no supporting argument of any kind, that the one necessarily begets the other.

    Each should be adjudicated on its own merits: accordingly, a complaint regarding a racial slur, emblematic of hundreds of years of systematic racism, should be adjudged valid. A complaint regarding innocuous historical terms which (as far as I can tell) carry no denotation or connotation of systematic racism seems much less valid.

    The point is, to shift the focus from a legitimate to (what appears to me) to be illegitimate complaint by claiming that the former necessarily begets the latter is simply a logical and rhetorical fallacy--and it's usually used as a desperation tactic when one side no longer has facts or reason to fall back on.
    This is a load of manure. As Haloti 92 laid out very well, they both sprung from the same impetus.





  6. #522

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    The covering-the-ears-while-humming zombie refuses to die. The idea that this clown's manufactured, misinformed complaint just occurred out of thin air rather than as a result of him succumbing to the latest grievance 'fad' is simply absurd.

    Indeed each has to be judged on its own merits. And the point is, as soon as one realizes that both spring from the same unserious, sanctimonious political movement, one is in a better position to judge the merits and discuss possible solutions.

    There is nothing whatsoever derogatory about the usage of the word Redskin in the context of naming a sports team. Nothing. One does not name their team after something to be ridiculed or mocked, and why in the world would one do that?

    Groups of letters are neutral, context and intent matters. The Redskins are claiming they are honoring American Indians with the name, because Redskins are fierce and brave warriors. There is no evidence that they are lying, and plenty of evidence and common sense supporting the truth of their claim.

    And there is scant evidence anyone is truly offended by the name as long as one dismisses the sudden influx of people feigning offense for the sake of political gain or political approval. And this includes the opinion of the small American Indian population as well.

    No, this piece about the military names is spawned from the exact same place as the football team name complaint. The exact same place. Yes, it is a more idiotic version, no one claimed otherwise, but the impetus was the same.
    Oh yes, this is all a conspiracy by those damn Political Correctness Police. My God, their power and reach are nearly limitless. I'm glad we have you on the case to ferret out this conspiracy and perfectly judge the credibility of all involved.

    So please tell me, what do the conspirators have to gain from all this effort? Obviously, they're lying about being offended, and they have nothing to be offended about anyway. So what kind of "political gain or political approval" do they stand to gain from all of this--some of whom have spent family fortunes and the best years of their lives on this cause? It can't be because they actually believe in their cause and want to see injustice righted. It must be so they can be the headline story on the Huffington Post.

    Dispensing with the sarcastic derision your post deserves, it is the height of prejudice and arrogance to claim that the users of a word control how that word can affect others. It is very easy for Dan Snyder to say that he means no harm with the name of his team, but he'd probably be the first person to boycott a local delicatessen named The Hook-Nosed, Money-Grubbing K*ke, even if the owner of that establishment earnestly claims it wasn't meant harmfully.

    You would probably respond to that example by saying that no matter how the owner of the deli MEANS those words, they are clearly received as offensive to a significant portion of society. And you would finally understand what this controversy is actually about, and why it is not okay for a team to be named that even if those who named the team that "meant no harm." Or maybe you wouldn't and you'd still claim it's the damn PC police trying to destroy Murika.

    And the "not many people think it's offensive, including Native Americans" canard has been knocked down many times in this thread. It's a questionable idea that the propriety of a word, particularly a racial slur, can be gauged by taking a poll and identifying the majority position as correct. In any event, the study that meme relies on (the 2004 Annenberg study) had numerous methodological problems that render it nearly invalid. More recent studies show consistent majorities indicating that the term is offensive or insensitive, even if not all believe the name should be changed.





  7. #523

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post

    Dispensing with the sarcastic derision your post deserves, it is the height of prejudice and arrogance to claim that the users of a word control how that word can affect others. It is very easy for Dan Snyder to say that he means no harm with the name of his team, but he'd probably be the first person to boycott a local delicatessen named The Hook-Nosed, Money-Grubbing K*ke, even if the owner of that establishment earnestly claims it wasn't meant harmfully.

    You would probably respond to that example by saying that no matter how the owner of the deli MEANS those words, they are clearly received as offensive to a significant portion of society. And you would finally understand what this controversy is actually about, and why it is not okay for a team to be named that even if those who named the team that "meant no harm." Or maybe you wouldn't and you'd still claim it's the damn PC police trying to destroy Murika.

    .
    For a guy trying to dismiss a 'slippery slope' argument as invalid it's quite ironic that you presume to know the response of individuals to a hypothetical situation.





  8. #524

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    And the "not many people think it's offensive, including Native Americans" canard has been knocked down many times in this thread. It's a questionable idea that the propriety of a word, particularly a racial slur, can be gauged by taking a poll and identifying the majority position as correct. In any event, the study that meme relies on (the 2004 Annenberg study) had numerous methodological problems that render it nearly invalid. More recent studies show consistent majorities indicating that the term is offensive or insensitive, even if not all believe the name should be changed.
    More recent studies of the term and how people view it is irrelevant to the case at hand.

    I've also noticed that you have made absolutely no effort to refute Haloti 92's point that the owner(s) of the Redskins were not using the name in a derogatory way.





  9. #525
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    21,926
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    Oh yes, this is all a conspiracy by those damn Political Correctness Police. My God, their power and reach are nearly limitless. I'm glad we have you on the case to ferret out this conspiracy and perfectly judge the credibility of all involved.

    So please tell me, what do the conspirators have to gain from all this effort? Obviously, they're lying about being offended, and they have nothing to be offended about anyway. So what kind of "political gain or political approval" do they stand to gain from all of this--some of whom have spent family fortunes and the best years of their lives on this cause? It can't be because they actually believe in their cause and want to see injustice righted. It must be so they can be the headline story on the Huffington Post.

    Dispensing with the sarcastic derision your post deserves, it is the height of prejudice and arrogance to claim that the users of a word control how that word can affect others. It is very easy for Dan Snyder to say that he means no harm with the name of his team, but he'd probably be the first person to boycott a local delicatessen named The Hook-Nosed, Money-Grubbing K*ke, even if the owner of that establishment earnestly claims it wasn't meant harmfully.

    You would probably respond to that example by saying that no matter how the owner of the deli MEANS those words, they are clearly received as offensive to a significant portion of society. And you would finally understand what this controversy is actually about, and why it is not okay for a team to be named that even if those who named the team that "meant no harm." Or maybe you wouldn't and you'd still claim it's the damn PC police trying to destroy Murika.

    And the "not many people think it's offensive, including Native Americans" canard has been knocked down many times in this thread. It's a questionable idea that the propriety of a word, particularly a racial slur, can be gauged by taking a poll and identifying the majority position as correct. In any event, the study that meme relies on (the 2004 Annenberg study) had numerous methodological problems that render it nearly invalid. More recent studies show consistent majorities indicating that the term is offensive or insensitive, even if not all believe the name should be changed.


    I may not be a smart man, but I don't see in anyway how this contradicts the slippery slope theory of the Native American named helicopter article.





  10. #526
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post


    I may not be a smart man, but I don't see in anyway how this contradicts the slippery slope theory of the Native American named helicopter article.
    It doesn't.

    He went circular many pages ago, which is why I backed out.





  11. #527
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    21,926
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    It doesn't.

    He went circular many pages ago, which is why I backed out.
    :word

    Makes sense, guess I should do the same.





  12. #528

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post


    I may not be a smart man, but I don't see in anyway how this contradicts the slippery slope theory of the Native American named helicopter article.
    I don't understand what you don't get. Of course there will be ridiculous opinion articles written. Ridiculous opinion articles are written all the time. I'm not sure why people are going all chicken little over this (other than attempting to use it in a "see we told you so" way which is a huge and desperate reach).





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->