Results 421 to 432 of 536
-
06-23-2014, 10:04 AM #421Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
-
06-23-2014, 10:10 AM #422Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 6,040
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
The bolded portion is demonstrably false, but I'm not sure I can get through to you because you don't seem to understand how language works. Also, I thoroughly debunked your nonsense "linguistic experts at The Smithsonian" argument way back on page 3.
Again, to reiterate, a linguist's job isn't to opine on the moral value of a word. His job is to define how it originated, how it reflected contemporary attitudes, and how it demonstrated the way language changes and evolves over time. Ives was silent on the question of what the term "redskin" became--a racial epithet. And he didn't speak for "The Smithsonian," because no one single researcher ever speaks for his sponsoring organization.
-
06-23-2014, 10:17 AM #423Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 6,040
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
"Selfie" was the Oxford English Dictionary's Word of the Year in 2013.
The OED added over 900 words in its latest update, which covers about a decade's worth of time. A few more than a handful, I'd say.
-
06-23-2014, 10:22 AM #424Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
You're covering up a straw man with another one.
The term "n-gger" has always been a pejorative. Always. Now there were earlier variations of the word (negro, niggur, etc) that had differing meanings. But when the n-word came about in the 1900's, it was a pejorative based on race. To argue otherwise is fantasy.
And of course no one person speaks for the institution as a whole. That doesn't discredit what he said or his research. You're using a fact of life to somehow draw it out as a fallacy. The larger point here is there's credible research on both sides of the issue and that people are choosing which side to believe for themselves. I happen to believe the more factual, historically AND contextually correct use of Redskins falls on my side of the debate. Your milage may vary.
-
06-23-2014, 10:26 AM #425Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
And you don't know what you're talking about.
Oxford Dictionaries is not the same as the OLD Oxford Dictionary. Did you even read what you linked?
The Word of the Year need not have been coined within the past twelve months, but it does need to have become prominent or notable in that time. Selfie was added to OxfordDictionaries.com in August 2013, although the Word of the Year selection is made irrespective of whether the candidates are already included in an Oxford dictionary. Selfie is not yet in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), but is currently being considered for future inclusion.
Reading comprehension is your friend. Especially if you're going to try and attack someone with it.
-
-
06-23-2014, 10:33 AM #427Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
06-23-2014, 10:40 AM #428Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 6,040
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
Let me clarify.
The Oxford English Dictionary (which is what you're referring to when you say the "Old Oxford Dictionary") is a historical dictionary. It is not a current-usage dictionary, which is what the Oxford Dictionary of English (oxforddictionaries.com) is. They are both products of the Oxford University Press--they are related to one another but they don't do the same things. That is true.
Your point was that not a lot of words are added to the OED over time. That's outright false. I did misspeak, "selfie" wasn't OED's word of the year, it was Oxford Dictionary's. It does take a long time to get words added to the OED, again because it's a descriptive dictionary, not a general dictionary. They will need to see "selfie" be used consistently over a period of a few years to get added to the OED, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a "real word" or not.
-
06-23-2014, 10:43 AM #429Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
06-23-2014, 11:04 AM #430Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 6,040
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
So, to recap, you argued:
1) You can't say the N-word and Redskin are comparable words, because... FALSE! They are the same thing: originally neutral descriptors that quickly become unabashedly derogatory because of association and context.
2) The N-word has always been pejorative in nature. FALSE! It began as a neutral descriptor, much like Redskin.
3) While Redskin has not; in fact, it has been neutral or laudatory until very recently. FALSE! Like most racial epithets, Redskin was initially used in a non-pejorative way. But it didn't stay that way, and it turned quickly.
4) The Smithsonian says that Redskin is not a bad word at all! Cuz, Smithsonian! FALSE! Ives' research focused only on how the word appeared when it was initially coined, and he is correct that it was non-pejorative for a time. But the weight of linguistic research demonstrates that although the word was initially neutral, it became an epithet over time. This had absolutely occurred by the Massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...tive-americans
5) The OED is, like, a super-good dictionary, because not a lot of words get added to it every year. FALSE! Over 900 words have been added to the OED in the last decade, and hundreds more have been under consideration. The OED is a historical, descriptive dictionary whose job is to categorize and characterize words solely based on how they have actually been used.
So tell me again who's losing the argument?
-
06-23-2014, 11:06 AM #431
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
No, what is "infuriating" is that some people, for (possibly) political or social reasons, are flatly refusing to understand.
Here's the deal: polls, dictionaries, and NA leadership all indicate that the word is offensive. All of them.
Is it universally offensive? No. Does it need to be? No. In some mythical time in the past, was it not offensive? I suspect not, but the answer to that question doesn't matter.
The only question before the USPTO was, "is this word offensive or derogatory?" That was it. If the answer to that question is "yes," then they punch the ticket on the trademark. That's all. They aren't saying that you don't think the word is offensive, they aren't saying nobody can say the word, they aren't saying that the team has to change its name. They are simply saying that (1) the word "redskins" is offensive, judging by common usage, Native American leadership, and polls, and (2) terms that are offensive are not entitled to the protection of a trademark.
That's it. And part (2) is statutory. The only thing they were really saying was (1), because that is precisely the kind of thing they are supposed to be doing: making judgment calls about words. You can pick at the polls and say "but this one poll says 10%," you can pick at the dictionaries and say "dictionaries aren't the be all and end all," and you can pick at the comments of the NA leadership by pointing to individual people, self identifying as NA, who believe otherwise. But what you can't do, in honest discourse, is look at the combined weight of the evidence - dictionaries, polls, NA leadership, common usage - and say that the USPTO was abusing its discretion in following that evidence to the conclusion that the term is offensive. Not when all the evidence pointed in that direction. All of it. One crappy poll that says 10%? The fallibility of dictionaries? Even granting those things, all the evidence still points in the same direction: it's offensive.
Maybe not to Darb or some great number of others, but to another set of a great number of Native Americans, it is offensive, and all the evidence says so. The USPTO, unlike those of us in the cheap seats, actually had to follow the evidence, and it did so. Unlike some of you, it had a professional responsibility to rule in a manner consistent with the weight of that evidence. You don't have to like the outcome, but to argue that there was something inappropriate or abusive or political or otherwise unprofessional about it is just ridiculous.Festivus
His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.
-
06-23-2014, 11:12 AM #432Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
Simply not true, as linked by many others in this thread. Please read back. Numerous links have been posted showing polling that does not favor this statement and numerous links about tribal leaders who do NOT find it offensive.
This is disingenuous at best, a lie at most.
Bookmarks