Page 36 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3435363738 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 432 of 536
  1. #421
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by alienrace View Post
    This is what is infuriating. The "dictionary" isn't the end-all-be-all source of truth - and - moreover - it was only recently defined as such...
    And not all dictionaries are the same in terms of worth. A dictionary that enters in pop culture words such as "selfie" is not the same as say the Old Oxford English Dictionary where maybe, over a decade or so, only a handful of new words are added.





  2. #422

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    You made a straw man here.

    I know the history of the N word and it's origins from the word Negro. But the actual word is and has always been a pejorative.

    Redskins, on the other hand, has not been. And linguistic experts at The Smithsonian agree with me. If you can produced scholarly research to back up your claims, I really would like to see it.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    You are misrepresenting a thoroughly debunked talking point. If you're referring to Smithsonian linguist Goddard Ives, first of all, his research did not speak for "the Smithsonian." That's an misunderstanding of the way a research-sponsoring organization like the Smithsonian Institute works--one researcher can't speak for the organization the same way that one researcher can't speak for NIH or Harvard University.

    Also, Ives' research focused on the historical origin and context of the term. He explicitly said that his research did not address how the term eventually came to be used or what its relevance to modern discourse was. Like all linguists, his job was not to opine on whether or not certain words were good or bad, only where they came from.

    And the National Museum of the American Indian (a Smithsonian institution) recently hosted a symposium that made clear how many academics associated with SI feel about the name: it should be changed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...2e2_story.html http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/2...nian-symposium

    (By the way, the "some Native Americans don't mind the name" sounds a lot like "Well, I have a black friend, BUUUT..."
    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.





  3. #423

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    And not all dictionaries are the same in terms of worth. A dictionary that enters in pop culture words such as "selfie" is not the same as say the Old Oxford English Dictionary where maybe, over a decade or so, only a handful of new words are added.
    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.





  4. #424
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    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.
    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.





  5. #425
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    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.
    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.
    YOUR link also clearly states that word of the year doesn't mean it's actually in the dictionary.

    Reading comprehension is your friend. Especially if you're going to try and attack someone with it.





  6. #426

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    Numerous comprehensive studies of the use of the term ascribe negative connotation to it as far back as the 19th century.
    Links?





  7. #427
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by alienrace View Post
    Links?
    Given his most recent link that actually proved MY point, I too am interested in what link he may post.





  8. #428

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    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?



    YOUR link also clearly states that word of the year doesn't mean it's actually in the dictionary.

    Reading comprehension is your friend. Especially if you're going to try and attack someone with it.
    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.





  9. #429
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmorecareful View Post
    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.
    Right ...






  10. #430

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Right ...

    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?





  11. #431

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by alienrace View Post
    This is what is infuriating. The "dictionary" isn't the end-all-be-all source of truth - and - moreover - it was only recently defined as such...
    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.





  12. #432
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    34,414

    Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.

    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post
    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.
    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

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; //—->