Redslurs logo/name change countdown ...

[Blovius_Maximus]

The pro racist name side don't have any serious points to make, other than claiming, on flimsy evidence, that Native Americans don't mind being racially insulted.

Over 14 pages the same 3 arguments have been repeated.

1. General arguments against change in any form without any specific application to this case / Appeals to tradition.
2. Inventing a fictional character to represent anyone who disagrees with them. An interfering busybody who wants to complain and create problems for unspecified reasons. ("They don't have anything better to do" seems to be their best attempt at an explanation.) In opposition to what they see as their own tough manliness, this character is described as whining, complaining, bitching and having an itchy vaj. (Note the feminised language.)
3. Telling people to take their money elsewhere, as if the market will sort it out. Ignoring the fact that Washington are part of a league that splits most of its income and people would need to boycott the whole sport to have any effect.

In a way, I don't blame them, defending a racist team name is a tough case to make. I suppose they feel obligated to try because they've chosen that side of the cultural debate. I don't think I could do any better in their shoes.

Yes, “pro racist.”
It’s pro racists vs pro censors. Who will win?! Get your tickets now or order on pay-per-view!

Let’s drop words that carry extraneous baggage. There’s a “Keep” side and “Change” side.

Of the three characterizations of the discussion, I’m most interested in the first. Namely: “General arguments against change in any form without any specific application to this case / Appeals to tradition.”

Respectfully, isn’t that what proponents of change are doing? Namely, taking a general definition of a word and applying it without regard to the specifics of the case.

The argument is
“Redskins” = bad/slur everywhere
Washington football team is named “Redskins”
Washington football team name is bad/slur

Easy-peasy.

I could apply that same reasoning to “colored people.”
“Colored people = bad/offensive everywhere”
Prominent civil rights organization includes phrase “colored people”
Prominent civil rights organization name is bad.

In both cases general application without regard to the specifics yield a conclusion that requires name change. But that doesn’t feel like the right outcome. Why, because it is a mechanical application with an unthinking result. Applying the words to the specific case means taking into account context, history, or tradtion.

So, apply them to the Redskins with the same zeal that you would apply them to save the NAACP.

Tradition often succeeds where the dictionary fails. Traditions clears up meanings and intentions. What people do over and over again, for a long long time, tells you something about what they mean and what they intend. So, of the hundreds of thousands of times “Washington Redskins” has been used by tv sportscasters, newspaper journalists, talk radio callers, and your uncles Bob and Jim, how many times was it used as a slur, how many times did hate drip from their tongues? So many opportunities to swing the cudgel. So little blood.

But that means nothing. Merriam Webster means more. Redskins = Slur; 20 Goto 10. End of debate.

But this is a larger debate about values; how we prioritize them; and how we carry them out. Some consider progress hitting the backspace key and deleting what came earlier. Me, I prefer addition to subtraction. More words, better intentions, the transformation of bad to good. That’s the evolving story the Washington Redskins have been telling. Keep telling it.

[QtR Nevermore]

Yes, “pro racist.”
It’s pro racists vs pro censors. Who will win?! Get your tickets now or order on pay-per-view!

Let’s drop words that carry extraneous baggage. There’s a “Keep” side and “Change” side.

Of the three characterizations of the discussion, I’m most interested in the first. Namely: “General arguments against change in any form without any specific application to this case / Appeals to tradition.”

Respectfully, isn’t that what proponents of change are doing? Namely, taking a general definition of a word and applying it without regard to the specifics of the case.

The argument is
“Redskins” = bad/slur everywhere
Washington football team is named “Redskins”
Washington football team name is bad/slur

Easy-peasy.

I could apply that same reasoning to “colored people.”
“Colored people = bad/offensive everywhere”
Prominent civil rights organization includes phrase “colored people”
Prominent civil rights organization name is bad.

In both cases general application without regard to the specifics yield a conclusion that requires name change. But that doesn’t feel like the right outcome. Why, because it is a mechanical application with an unthinking result. Applying the words to the specific case means taking into account context, history, or tradtion.

So, apply them to the Redskins with the same zeal that you would apply them to save the NAACP.

Tradition often succeeds where the dictionary fails. Traditions clears up meanings and intentions. What people do over and over again, for a long long time, tells you something about what they mean and what they intend. So, of the hundreds of thousands of times “Washington Redskins” has been used by tv sportscasters, newspaper journalists, talk radio callers, and your uncles Bob and Jim, how many times was it used as a slur, how many times did hate drip from their tongues? So many opportunities to swing the cudgel. So little blood.

But that means nothing. Merriam Webster means more. Redskins = Slur; 20 Goto 10. End of debate.

But this is a larger debate about values; how we prioritize them; and how we carry them out. Some consider progress hitting the backspace key and deleting what came earlier. Me, I prefer addition to subtraction. More words, better intentions, the transformation of bad to good. That’s the evolving story the Washington Redskins have been telling. Keep telling it.

I didn't say pro-racist, I said pro-racist name ie. In favour of a name many consider racist. It feels like you're trying to deliberately misrepresent me when you only quote the first two words.

This argument and your previous post seem like two more, albeit thoughtful and well written, reiterations of the appeal to traditions argument.

Language change happens every day. The NAACP has a term in its name that has fallen out of favour, like the Washington Redskins but the similarities stop there.

The NAACP doesn't use the term anymore when talking about black people. They tend to use the acronym when naming their own organisation. They have a track record of working to improve the lot of black people that proves there was never any intention for the name to be racially offensive or that they were ever thoughtless enough not to care whether it was offensive.

The Washington Redskins continue to use the word to refer to themselves and on merchandise and products. They have a track record of being the most racist team in the NFL and being the last to add a black player. They haven't built a reservoir of goodwill among the community referenced in their name.

The layers of positive Redskins memories you refer to are football memories. The have little to do with the name and they certainly haven't added enough positivity to the word to detoxify it.

We've established that none of us would call a Native American a redskin. I'll go further, if we were talking about the football team to a Native American, I suspect most of us would call them Washington, rather than saying, "The Redskins, The Redskins" repeatedly. Even you, Blovius. I think you're too polite for that and, if I'm right, I think it shows that the slur hasn't lost all of its power to offend.

[moose10101]

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Deadskins owner Little Danny Beltbuckles and FedEx owner Fred Smith must be pissing in their pants over that empty threat.

"MaryEmilyOHara" doesn't sound very scary name. Perhaps if it were the Mafia or the Russian mob, that might get Danny's attention. "MaryEmilyOHara " ... not so much.

Politicians can be intimidated by mobs and tiny loud-mouthed gangs of faux-offended do-gooders. Rich Capitalists .... not so much.

WTF does the name of the person who wrote the article have to do with anything? She’s not the one sending the letters. And what do “tiny loud-mouthed gangs” have to do with anything? They’re not the ones sending the letters.

The letters were sent by investment bankers who control nearly a trillion dollars in assets. If there’s one thing that can intimidate a rich capitalist, it’s a bunch of even richer capitalists.

[darb72]

Interesting article on the history of the term Redskins.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...ory-of-redskin

[edromeo]

Metathesiophobia
Nostalgia
Cognitive dissonance
“Over sensitivity”
Code words
Racism
Denial
Progress
Money/Merchandising
Exploitation
Anti-racism
Logic
Conflating
Native Americans
Change management
Change resistance

[HotInHere]

Metathesiophobia
Nostalgia
Cognitive dissonance
“Over sensitivity”
Code words
Racism
Denial
Progress
Money/Merchandising
Exploitation
Anti-racism
Logic
Conflating
Native Americans
Change management
Change resistance

Ummm... thanks?

[Barksdale]

Ah literature. Let’s stay there for a second.

Have you ever read the novel: “The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs”?

I admit, the title is distasteful. I knew it was distasteful when I purchased my first edition years ago. My kid had no idea what the title meant when he read the book; he was just mesmerized by the substance of the book. My grandkid, however, he can’t get past the title. He won’t read the book unless the title is changed.

You mentioned that you wouldn’t want to take the cleaver to works of literature. Why is that? Could it be that the offensive bits are context for the story or are needed to understand the story as a historical piece? Or could it be that some matters should just get grandfathered in, to do otherwise would be to engage in a kind of presentism, or chronological snobbery? Can the Washington Redskins be grandfathered? What is your criteria for saving literature? Apply that criteria to Washington Redskins. What are your results?

Your other point: would we call a team, say, The Nashville Nazis? No. We apply contemporary standards and mores to what’s contemporary. The 2020 naming of The Nazis would be a seen as a deliberate thumb to the eye. As I quoted earlier, “Even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.” That’s a kick.

Are you refering to the South Park episode? Then I´ve seen it yes. Awesome, like most of their work. Including their episode about the Washington Redskins btw... "Hut hut HUUUUUUUUUT".
If it´s some obscure actual book, then no, I do not know it.

But lets instead talk about it in general then.
A lot of great litterature obviously refers to blacks, natives of various origin, not to mention women and what not, in ways we don´t find acceptable today. But sometimes, most times, it´s not blatantly racist or sexist but just using the language of that era. That doesn´t take away anything from the novel itself, when it´s not even a focal point of it. As long as yo as a reader are aware of these things, as one should be from atleast say age 12-13 to some degree, I don´t think it´s a problem.
But thats not the case with "Washington Redskins", the franchise. Not comparable to the odd use or that word in a novel from 1880. Big difference.
Yes, some words do change meaning over time obviously, and become either more or less offensive. No, I do not think Redskins can be grandfathered into acceptance for a loong time, and I think it has now business being the name of a major (well...) franchise.

And what if many feel that it is as much a thumb in the eye as "nazis" or "n-worders"? I don´t put it quite fully there, and I´m also not to keen on everyone being offended by everything. But this is more, as I stated before, like everyone should just realize it´s simply bad, for all kinds of reasons.

Would you btw call a native american redskin? Or do you feel that the franchise redskins has been grandfathered enough to not be really connected to the actual word that it de facto is?

[WNCRavensFan]

Interesting article on the history of the term Redskins.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...ory-of-redskin

Good article. Love the picture.

There may have been a time long ago where the name was positive. Maybe one day the word will be exonerated, who knows. The term "gay" has been "reclaimed", and I really don't know how one goes about doing that.

Right now, in 2020, it's not and if business wants to be consistent in any fashion the name's gotta go. From that article:

And when the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian hosted a symposium on Indian mascots in February, museum director Kevin Gover, himself a Native American, said the word was "the equivalent of the N-word." At the same event, former Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell asked the crowd to consider an equally offensive name for the local sports team: "How you would like for us to change the name of that team to the Washington Darkies?"

Otherwise, for the NFL's sake, I'm not going to buy into any of their pro-black bullshit. "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" before "Star Spangled Banner" in Week 1? Yeah, sure, that's genuine endearment from the execs. And no I don't want them playing the Cherokee National Anthem either (which happens to be "Amazing Grace") unless they genuinely want to.

[Ortizer]

Some people have too-thin skin. Any excuse to bitch. Sorry: if something is designed to taunt, to embarrass, humiliate, threaten etc, that goes too far. But if a distinct minority of folks who are out to just make trouble, I just tune them out. Live & let live!

If anyone doesn't care for the Redskins name & logo: root for another team.

I rather enjoy beating up on the "Slurs" fans. It wouldn't be the same of they were called the "DC Warriors", or "Chesapeake Bay Retrievers".

Well yeah. Retrievers make great dogs, but a terrible mascot.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[QtR Nevermore]

ABC 7 News - WJLA
@ABC7News
JUST IN: @FedEx has asked the Washington @Redskins to change its name. Here is the statement:

“We have communicated to the team in Washington our request that they change the team name.“

[Ortizer]

Isn't that like the tail wagging the dog? ... Bc

Sponsors canceling is what gets tv shows canceled after a host offends people too.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

Yes, “pro racist.”
It’s pro racists vs pro censors. Who will win?! Get your tickets now or order on pay-per-view!

Let’s drop words that carry extraneous baggage. There’s a “Keep” side and “Change” side.

Of the three characterizations of the discussion, I’m most interested in the first. Namely: “General arguments against change in any form without any specific application to this case / Appeals to tradition.”

Respectfully, isn’t that what proponents of change are doing? Namely, taking a general definition of a word and applying it without regard to the specifics of the case.

The argument is
“Redskins” = bad/slur everywhere
Washington football team is named “Redskins”
Washington football team name is bad/slur

Easy-peasy.

I could apply that same reasoning to “colored people.”
“Colored people = bad/offensive everywhere”
Prominent civil rights organization includes phrase “colored people”
Prominent civil rights organization name is bad.

In both cases general application without regard to the specifics yield a conclusion that requires name change. But that doesn’t feel like the right outcome. Why, because it is a mechanical application with an unthinking result. Applying the words to the specific case means taking into account context, history, or tradtion.

So, apply them to the Redskins with the same zeal that you would apply them to save the NAACP.

Tradition often succeeds where the dictionary fails. Traditions clears up meanings and intentions. What people do over and over again, for a long long time, tells you something about what they mean and what they intend. So, of the hundreds of thousands of times “Washington Redskins” has been used by tv sportscasters, newspaper journalists, talk radio callers, and your uncles Bob and Jim, how many times was it used as a slur, how many times did hate drip from their tongues? So many opportunities to swing the cudgel. So little blood.

But that means nothing. Merriam Webster means more. Redskins = Slur; 20 Goto 10. End of debate.

But this is a larger debate about values; how we prioritize them; and how we carry them out. Some consider progress hitting the backspace key and deleting what came earlier. Me, I prefer addition to subtraction. More words, better intentions, the transformation of bad to good. That’s the evolving story the Washington Redskins have been telling. Keep telling it.

Goto is horrible coding practice

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk