Page 71 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381121 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 1219

Thread: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

  1. #701
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,951

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    If that's true, it's only one school.

    I want a citation for "all over", "plenty of them", "everywhere" and other such claims.
    Someone posted it for you. And Google is your friend. I used it.

  2. #702
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Which they didn't say that they couldn't use the name. Just that they lost some patent protection.

    The Skins could even still win a civil suit, it only means that a patent infringement couldn't be brought in criminal court.
    They dropped the trademark to pressure them into changing the name by harming their profit margin. So yes, the patent office is regulating free speech. A power they DO NOT have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #703
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,313

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    62 schools in 22 states, and such schools have been changing their names rapidly. What's that, 62 out of 100000 highschools? And fewer each year. They can all change. No big deal.

  4. #704
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,474

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    So it's not an insult to say someone has red skin.
    That's not the same as turning them into a cartoon while calling them redskins.

  5. #705
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    That doesn't answer my questions. PS I don't use either of those terms.

    Do you think the Redskins were attempting to marginalize Native Americans, and since we both agree that the LGBT community has been denied equal rights, specifically what equal rights do you think Native Americans were being denied?
    I am not talking about equal rights. I am talking about the general attitudes of the majority towards the minority and how they are marginalized sociologically. I brought up the polling on SSM just to show how attitudes have changed.

    The Redskins may not have been trying to marginalize Native Americans when they named the team. As time goes on, language evolves. The term "redskin" may have been acceptable when they named the team. The n-word was acceptable for the majority to use at that time too. The times have changed. Language has evolved. This issue isn't going away. Referring to people by their skin color is culturally insensitive when used in the context of a franchise mascot.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  6. #706
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    I think it's bad to take a race of human beings as a mascot like we do lions and tigers and bears.
    Well, if they can sell it then they certainly have the right to do so.

    BTW, is that considered porn?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #707
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    What's interesting too is the dissenting opinion on the matter from 1 of the 3 judges tasked with making this (ridiculous) decision. I forget his name but his dissent was online yesterday, and he said the petitioners (the 5 Native Americans) failed to prove that the term "Redskins" was disparaging at the time the trademarks were registered.
    That has been my understanding as well. This is what should be so disturbing about the removal of the trademark protection. This is government by whim.

    Why that is not seen as an expansion of the very dangerous waters the country is being forced to wade in by the leadership in the White House and elsewhere, is alarming.

  8. #708
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    The Redskins may not have been trying to marginalize Native Americans when they named the team. As time goes on, language evolves. The term "redskin" may have been acceptable when they named the team. The n-word was acceptable for the majority to use at that time too. The times have changed. Language has evolved. This issue isn't going away. Referring to people by their skin color is culturally insensitive when used in the context of a franchise mascot.
    We wouldn't want to be insensitive. God, if that was against the law I would be in jail for life.

  9. #709
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,951

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorgasm View Post
    I am not talking about equal rights. I am talking about the general attitudes of the majority towards the minority and how they are marginalized sociologically. I brought up the polling on SSM just to show how attitudes have changed.

    The Redskins may not have been trying to marginalize Native Americans when they named the team. As time goes on, language evolves. The term "redskin" may have been acceptable when they named the team. The n-word was acceptable for the majority to use at that time too. The times have changed. Language has evolved. This issue isn't going away. Referring to people by their skin color is culturally insensitive when used in the context of a franchise mascot.
    So nobody was being oppressed by the name, nobody was losing any rights because of the name, this was all just....emotion.

    Do you have a poll that shows the majority of Native Americans are offended by the name?

  10. #710
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,191

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Offensive, or not, the patent office doesn't have the authority to regulate free speech.
    They don't? Why not?
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •