• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

ocean515 said:
Not at all. Just ignored on the basis of merit, but followed by a flick of a $10 chip, and a pull on the handle of the slot machine, in recognition of all the Indians have done for the US.
Click to expand...

You don't actually think that the Indians invented casino's, do you?
 
The Man said:
What about Redman chewing tobacco and Redman the rapper? Do they lose their trademarks too?
Click to expand...

The tobacco? Perhaps... because is has a native american on the label.

The rapper? Within the african american community there are lighter skinned blacks. They are often referred to as red boned. I'd be willing to bet that his name probably more refers to that. It's a more common term in the South. A guy I used to work with was absolutely nuts about, as he said it, "man I love those red boned girls".
 
Bodhisattva said:
If they do not see it as derogatory... then why is it derogatory again?
Click to expand...

If I don't find the word slut derogatory, is it no longer derogatory? Of course not because words have a history behind their usage, context, inference, origins, etc..
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
Regularly. Wouldn't you if you saw them? I mean, that's on the tip of everyone's tongues when we see a movie with Native Americans, or see one in a Casino, or see them in our retail stores in the Thanksgiving decoration displays.

Next time we go to Mohegan Sun (which happens to be this weekend woot!) I'm going to have to stop myself from screaming "REDSKIN" when the valet doesn't bring my car soon enough.
Click to expand...

You let a redskin park your car????????
 
When I was selling cars in Las Vegas, we wouldn't sell any cars to Indians on time.

Can anybody guess why?
 
tres borrachos said:
If I was fat and the product of a single mother, I'd be pissed at that.

;)

This has opened a can of worms that I think - hope - the government will regret.
Click to expand...

Excessive whining over this only reveals a clear dislike of natives. Sorry but bigots don't get to have an opinion
 
Hatuey said:
I repost:



You're obviously not friends with extrapolation.



That they use it doesn't make it any less of a slur. What part of that don't you understand?



Look C.B., your comparisons simply aren't even remotely the same. The Vikings? What ethnic group currently living in North America are they named after? None? Alright. Moving on. The point of your argument was a weak one. If some NAs like it, why is it slur and why is it bad to use it? Actually, it was a slur before they started using it. Arbo provided the context in which the word has been used for the past 200 years, though it has gone back and forth for about half that time, the last 100 years it has been covered with the same noble savage, violent savage tinge that idealizes NAs without seriously looking at the effects of that word. Now, you can keep complaining and complaining - but it's a slur. It's no different than nigger or mick or slut or even guinea. It's a slur. There is nothing positive about it and that it's still being used perpetuates false stereotypes of that ... what was it? "Fighting spirit" Grim talked about. You know, the fighting spirit that got 25 million of them exterminated. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If it's a slur, you may want to call them up and tell them they're slurring themselves. It doesn't bother me, but clearly the word bothers you. How about educating them?

I never exterminated anyone. Who did you exterminate?

Who's CB?
 
poweRob said:
wow..
Click to expand...

Thanks. Now that the PC police have been given so much power, I wonder which words will be banned next?

This is nothing but the latest panty twist from folks seeking attention. Did anyone think the Washington Redskins were meant to demean and disparage Indians?

Does anyone comment on the genocides conducted by Indians against each other?

This angst is nothing but lame PC BS from the "sensitive" crowds on the left.
 
poweRob said:
Then you should cheer this move because when the Redskins change their name, from that day forward the value of your vintage jersey's should rise. Just as I wish I still had my Baltimore Colts pennant I got when I visited the NFL Hall of Fame when I was a kid.
Click to expand...
I have a Dale Earnhardt jacket that is worth a few bucks. Not for sale.
I am not really a collector.
 
I don't think this is right. While I understand the sentiments of some groups, the government should not have the right to do this just because some might be offended. That is not the point at all of the patent office. This opens up the possibility that copywrites for books or movies or other patented or copywrited material that might be deemed "racist" or offensive in nature could lose their copywrite due to this belief of offense.

While I don't believe in being offensive and think that ownership of certain copywrites/patents should be limited, this is not such a case. This is a very specific association that they have a right, no matter how offensive some may find it, to hold that name and even the image. Freedom of speech says that this is not something for the government to decide, but rather for the people to decide and take care of via the people putting pressure on the owners (if the people feel it is wrong).
 
roguenuke said:
I don't think this is right. While I understand the sentiments of some groups, the government should not have the right to do this just because some might be offended. That is not the point at all of the patent office. This opens up the possibility that copywrites for books or movies or other patented or copywrited material that might be deemed "racist" or offensive in nature could lose their copywrite due to this belief of offense.

While I don't believe in being offensive and think that ownership of certain copywrites/patents should be limited, this is not such a case. This is a very specific association that they have a right, no matter how offensive some may find it, to hold that name and even the image. Freedom of speech says that this is not something for the government to decide, but rather for the people to decide and take care of via the people putting pressure on the owners (if the people feel it is wrong).
Click to expand...
Agreed. To me this big issue HERE is not so much the name and logo, but rather the government's obvious overstepping of its legitimate bounds and attempting to coerce private behavior. Even those people who think this is a good move should be wary and sacred as it sets a very dangerous precedent.
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh FFS. This **** is exhausting.

Disparaging, my ass.
Click to expand...

You don't get to decide what is disparaging to another group.

You know, the only reason this hasn't already been dealt with and the word isn't more disparaged to the general public is because the people it is used against where mostly killed off.
 
radcen said:
Agreed. To me this big issue HERE is not so much the name and logo, but rather the government's obvious overstepping of its legitimate bounds and attempting to coerce private behavior. Even those people who think this is a good move should be wary and sacred as it sets a very dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

It's not an overstep, it's been a part of the patent office's rules for a long time now.
 
Your Star said:
It's not an overstep, it's been a part of the patent office's rules for a long time now.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good time to get rid of the rule then.
 
Your Star said:
It's not an overstep, it's been a part of the patent office's rules for a long time now.
Click to expand...
No. It's not an overstep when a new application is denied. It most certainly is an overstep when a decades-old trademark is rescinded, and just magically coincidentally when it is politically convenient to do so.
 
Henrin said:
Then you would have to also disagree with the first amendment. Seems like a strange argument to me.
Click to expand...

I do not. No one is forcing them to stop using the word, they just can't trademark the word.
 
Your Star said:
I do not. No one is forcing them to stop using the word, they just can't trademark the word.
Click to expand...

Which more or less forces them to stop using it. In a world where trademarks don't exist perhaps they wouldn't change their name, but in a world that they do, yeah, they will.
 
Your Star said:
I do not. No one is forcing them to stop using the word, they just can't trademark the word.
Click to expand...
Do you also approve of the federal government essentially blackmailing the states to do their bidding by threatening to withhold highway funding, etc.? Pretty much the same coercion, just a different issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom