• 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

Just so I'm clear, what the PO has done is to allow more entities than the Redskins to utilize a disparaging trademark?
 
Henrin said:
Why you do think being offended should matter in terms of law?
Click to expand...

You're hitting the nail on the head.

If 10% of the population is offended by something, does the government now have the right to force a change to comply with the wishes of those 10%? Theoretically, anything in our society can offend 10% of the population, especially a society that has over 300 million people. Think of the possibilities.

What's to stop 10% of the apple farmers here in New England from saying they are offended that Microsoft is trying to represent Apples as technology instead of fruit?
There's a Mexican restaurant chain here in NH called "Shortys". What's to stop 10% of the little people population from forcing them to change the name (something that they could probably ill afford to do)?
What's to stop 10% of the blondes in this country from demanding that "Easy Blonde" beer no longer be manufactured because it offends us?
What's to stop 10% of the white people from saying that "Cracker Barrel" is offensive, forcing them to also change the name, marketing, sigs, ads, etc.?
 
Henrin said:
Is that somehow supposed to mean it's not a violation of the first amendment?
Click to expand...

Are you sure you understand the First Amendment?

Where's the outrage when states reject vanity license plate requests?
 
tres borrachos said:
No, the sensitive people will continue to melt down about it. The other NFL owners will get pissed because merchandise is pooled and the revenue shared, and they won't want to take a hit. Harry Reid will carry on on the Senate floor again soon enough. One of the Redskin cheerleaders will hire Gloria Allred to represent her. It will re-emerge.
Click to expand...

Most especially, as you have already alluded, the Washington Redskins name is the safe wag the dog issue of the moment. It takes focus off of Iraq imploding, obscuring the disappearance of two years of Lois Lerner's and now six other people's e-mails and her hard drive being recycled right in the midst of the height of the IRS scandal, and ensures that the Obamacare nightmare won't be prominently back in the news prior to the upcoming election.

I wondered what they would come up with. This appears to be it.
 
tres borrachos said:
What's to stop 10% of the apple farmers here in New England from saying they are offended that Microsoft is trying to represent Apples as technology instead of fruit?
Click to expand...

Microsoft and Apple are two different corporations. :lol:
 
Papa bull said:
Yep. It would sever the emotional attachment to the team. It would be like an expansion team coming in.
Click to expand...

For some fans, absolutely.

It's funny....a national sports team changing its entire identity while remaining in the exact same location has RARELY happened and I can only think of one instance where it occured without significant fan support. The three instances I can think of off hand all come from basketball.

The New Orleans Hornets to the New Orleans Pelicans. To my understanding the folks down in New Orleans were happy for the change. The "Hornets" name never held any special affinity to them and the Pelican is somehow an important bird within New Orleans culture if I remember reading something right.

The Charlotte Bobcats to the Charlotte Hornets. People in Charlotte HATED losing the Hornets and couldn't stand the Bobcats name by and large (Hell, it was named in part due to the original owner...first name Robert). The majority of fans in Charlotte seem to be ESTATIC they're getting their hornets back, as the name is a sense of pride for the city dating back to the revolutionary war.

The Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards. And by and large, this was a decision PANNED in Washington. Fans for the most part have hated the name change. Living in the area, it's not uncommon what so ever to find individuals to claim to have been Bullets fans that stopped following the team after the name change. There were others that, despite the name change, still would make it a point to wear Bullets jerseys or get knock-off Bullets gear with the current players. Fans have been clamoring for years for the team name and colors to change back.....eventually leading to a few years ago when one of the teams Logos returned to one that resembled the old Bullets logo, the jersey's reverted back to the look of old Bullets jersey's, and the color's went back to Red, White, and Blue.

It's kind of strange and a weird coincidence (meaning that seroiusly, not snarky) that both of the MAJOR instances where a team that isn't involved in a recent move in some fashion is having it's name changed are Washington D.C. sports teams and both due to the notion that the name is "offensive".
 
Your Star said:
Doesn't change my point that a big reason why people don't think this word is racist is because there aren't enough people in the group that it is disparaging to stand up against it.
Click to expand...

So your opinion that it is disparaging means as much as the other posters opinion that it is not.

Isn't that right?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Most especially, as you have already alluded, the Washington Redskins name is the safe wag the dog issue of the moment. It takes focus off of Iraq imploding, obscuring the disappearance of two years of Lois Lerner's and now six other people's e-mails and her hard drive being recycled right in the midst of the height of the IRS scandal, and ensures that the Obamacare nightmare won't be prominently back in the news prior to the upcoming election.

I wondered what they would come up with. This appears to be it.
Click to expand...

The Redkins' name and an Op-Ed kept our esteemed Senate Majority leader very busy yesterday. I wonder what he has in store for us today (while the world is filled with mayhem).
 
tres borrachos said:
The Redkins' name and an Op-Ed kept our esteemed Senate Majority leader very busy yesterday. I wonder what he has in store for us today (while the world is filled with mayhem).
Click to expand...

He did say to do the opposite of whatever Cheney says regarding war. :lol:
 
Papa bull said:
There doesn't have to be a team named after the Euro-Americans in order for them to find the slur "white people" offensive. There's no "white" nation. No one came from the country of "white". And you don't get to tell other people what they should or shouldn't find offensive. If a small percentage of Euro-Americans find it offensive, then racist scum need to be forced to stop using it. That's the way it works. Take any word or phrase you want and insist it's pejorative and make people stop using it. Faggot is a good example. So is niggardly. Two perfectly good words that the thought police have purged from practical use.
Click to expand...

I find N.W.A. offensive. I am sure I can find 4 people that think like me and have that musical groups patent pulled so anybody can sell items with their name on it.

Is the patent office going to be inundated with requests like this now?
 
Thorgasm said:
The "Skins" could be an acceptable compromise.
Click to expand...

Too be quite honest, I don't think it will...

If you just go by "Skins" but keep the icongraphy the team uses, I don't believe the activists will be happy and the complaints and attempts to combat the team will continue.

If you just go by "Skins" but remove the icongraphy the team uses, then I don't think you'll have fans being amazingly happy with it. That's no different than changing the name to "Warriors" but keeping everything...you're still changing a significant portion of the tradition.

I do agree that personally I think it'd be a reasonably compromise, but I don't think by and large it'd really do anything to fix the situation...it'd just tamp it down for a bit.

I stand by my belief that the most likely course of action is that Snyder holds on for as long as he possible can until his hand is actually forced, at which time it goes to Warriors (which I believe the team already does have trademarked as it relates to an NFL franchises potential naming).

The general icongraphy could still be kept, likely moving to the old "Spear and Feather" logo. Burgundy and Gold would likely be kept as the color. The rythem for the fight remains in tact as the syllables are similar with with "Hail to the Warriors" and "Hail to the Redskins".

Mind you, I don't think that'd really stop anything either. Based on what's occured on the college ranks, where "Redskins" was largely focused on first but grew to pretty much going after almost any non-officially sanctioned native american referenced names, I fully expect that if/when this fight is won that the eyes will then turn to the other names around pro sports. Note, I am not suggesting this as a reason AGAINST changing the Redskins name...but simply something I'd believe to be likely and something I'd take into consideration if I was an owner of the team having to figure out what to do with the next name.
 
Mason66 said:
I find N.W.A. offensive. I am sure I can find 4 people that think like me and have that musical groups patent pulled so anybody can sell items with their name on it.

Is the patent office going to be inundated with requests like this now?
Click to expand...

Why do letters offend you? :lol:

:prof N.W.A was used because they couldn't get a copyright on the words actually spelled out.
 
calamity said:
Why would I be? I'm a straight, white male. I rule this roost. It's kind of nice, actually. That's why I am surprised so many whites whine so much.
Click to expand...

Because the word Gringo is a word Mexicans use to disparage white people or more specifically white Americans.

How can you not be outraged by that?
 
Mason66 said:
Because the word Gringo is a word Mexicans use to disparage white people or more specifically white Americans.

How can you not be outraged by that?
Click to expand...

Because white Americans aren't a minority.
 
Mason66 said:
Is the patent office going to be inundated with requests like this now?
Click to expand...

It is interesting. A poster earlier tried to suggest that any word that CAN be used disparagingly or has roots at ANY TIME as being a slur is ALWAYS then disparaging and a slur regardless of the context of it's use.

Using that posters logic, it calls into the question of trademarks for things like the NAACP. If a slur is a disparaging term regardless of it's context, use, or history then this becomes a problem. Similar as well for GLAAD.

Naturally it WON'T ever actually be a problem, but just highlighting the flawed logic that somehow because a word at some point in time was used as a slur and disparaging suddenly means it always is regardless of context or manner of use.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yeah, Cheney's Op-Ed sent Harry into a tailspin yesterday.

GRRR I can't stand his voice (Harry's I mean). He sounds like a sissy.
Click to expand...

He is a sissy, so I suppose it suits him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom