• 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

Hatuey said:
When my opinion is based on academic research, historiographical articles on the slurs and examples across a myriad of similar cases, it's a little more than "an opinion". On the other hand, - "your opinion" is hardly more than an attempt at being relevant and isn't really based on much of anything. It has also failed on a number of grounds. The first is that there are so many historically inconsistent holes in it, it's like shooting fish in a bucket. The second is that it simply isn't based on any kind of historic example that could support it. However, I am a benevolent person and welcome you back when you've studied more on this issue. Toodles.
Click to expand...

How kind of you. I never knew until this post that you were the one who authorized opinions on DP. The things I learned already!

I don't have to do research, Hatuey. I'll say it again. I have my opinion on what is "racist" and you have yours. I'm 52 and didn't fall off the turnip truck last week. You won't change mine, and I'm not trying to change yours. We disagree on this issue. Pretty simple. Have a great Thursday!
 
Hatuey said:
facepalm1.jpg


No, the 10 posts have shown why using a race's usage of a slur is a terrible measure of a slur's sociocultural implications. That you haven't grasped that after the 3-4 different ways I've explained it is indicative that you really do have reading comprehension issues.
Click to expand...

Why is it now such an issue? seems the NFL has used the name since at least 1967.
Can you provide evidence that the name "Washington Redskins" has been used as a slur?

My impression is that is demonstrated a proud/brave/warrior type. Much like the Florida Seminols, Alanta Braves, Clevland Indians.
People can make it a slur, but that is their problem.
It is a shame we are becoming so pc.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as PC police. Anyone pushing that whiny diatribe is doing nothing but playing the victim card. No one is out to get you. There are no PC police. You can say all the heinous crap you want... just like you did in that last post... and I'll bet that there have been no police knocking on your door since you said that heinous crap have there?
 
tres borrachos said:
How kind of you. I never knew until this post that you were the one who authorized opinions on DP. The things I learned already!

I don't have to do research, Hatuey. I'll say it again. I have my opinion on what is "racist" and you have yours. I'm 52 and didn't fall off the turnip truck last week. You won't change mine, and I'm not trying to change yours. We disagree on this issue. Pretty simple. Have a great Thursday!
Click to expand...

Did I miss all of Hatuey's links to back up his rant?
I disagree with him also on this issue. The short of it, you cannot please all people 100% of the time.

It just seems interesting that now after 47 years of the name in place, it has got to go. Yes, there has been minor objections in the past, but the courts ruled in favor of the Team.
It is PC running amok., imo.:mrgreen:
 
poweRob said:
There is no such thing as PC police. Anyone pushing that whiny diatribe is doing nothing but playing the victim card. No one is out to get you. There are no PC police. You can say all the heinous crap you want... just like you did in that last post... and I'll bet that there have been no police knocking on your door since you said that heinous crap have there?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see. An NFL team was forced to give up their 45+ year old trademark on a name that was "offensive" to 5 people.

No, there's no "PC Police".

:roll:
 
tres borrachos said:
Well, let's see. An NFL team was forced to give up their 45+ year old trademark on a name that was "offensive" to 5 people.

No, there's no "PC Police".

:roll:
Click to expand...

There are no PC police. People have always had grievances and what you are putting forth is that those who have grievances that you disagree with should not be able to speak.
 
mike2810 said:
Did I miss all of Hatuey's links to back up his rant?
I disagree with him also on this issue. The short of it, you cannot please all people 100% of the time.

It just seems interesting that now after 47 years of the name in place, it has got to go. Yes, there has been minor objections in the past, but the courts ruled in favor of the Team.
It is PC running amok., imo.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It's opened up the door to scary things. This has set a precedent (contrary to what some are saying on here). If the voices of 5 people are enough to compel an agency of the federal government to strip a trademark because it "offends" them, I can assure this will happen more and more.

OT but I'd like to know how many of the ones who agree with this legal decision over someone being "offended" have scoffed, screached, and berated at any posters who have said that certain things "offend" them, such as books, songs, women breastfeeding in public restaurants displaying nipples, and so on. I'll go out on a limb and say "a lot".

I'd direct you to Hatuey's links, but there are too many of them. Suffice to say, he disagrees with my opinion ;) but he was "benevolent" and welcomed me back into the thread.;)
 
poweRob said:
There are no PC police. People have always had grievances and what you are putting forth is that those who have grievances that you disagree with should not be able to speak.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

I'll remind you of this post the next time someone posts about something that he is "offended" by and you aren't. I'm sure you'll be just as considerate of someone on the right being "offended" as you are of these 5 people and champion abolishing what "offends" them. ;)
 
tres borrachos said:
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

I'll remind you of this post the next time someone posts about something that he is "offended" by and you aren't. I'm sure you'll be just as considerate of someone on the right being "offended" as you are of these 5 people and champion abolishing what "offends" them. ;)
Click to expand...

People on the right tend to be always offended. They are always outraged because they are always offended. And when nothing is out there that offends them that day, they fabricate something to be offended by so that they may be outraged. Then when that fabrication is debunked it turns into a "conspiracy" so that they may cling to their outrage and ignore the debunking.
 
poweRob said:
People on the right tend to be always offended. They are always outraged because they are always offended. And when nothing is out there that offends them that day, they fabricate something to be offended by so that they may be outraged. Then when that fabrication is debunked it turns into a "conspiracy" so that they may cling to their outrage and ignore the debunking.
Click to expand...

Ah, so I understand. You only think people should be allowed to voice their "offense" and you fully support it, up to and including government action on it, as long as the offended person isn't on the right. Thanks for clarifying.
 
tres borrachos said:
Ah, so I understand. You only think people should be allowed to voice their "offense" and you fully support it, up to and including government action on it, as long as the offended person isn't on the right. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

Actually its the opposite. I feel you have the right to say any heinous thing you want. The difference between you and I is that THEN I believe I have the right to voice my opposition to your heinous comments. This is where you cry "PC POLICE.... PC POLICE!!!1111!1!!!" Because you want to be able to say ridiculous stuff uncontested and that anyone who disagrees with you should not be allowed to speak. Hence the whining about the nonexistent PC police to try and shut them up.
 
poweRob said:
Actually its the opposite. I feel you have the right to say any heinous thing you want. The difference between you and I is that THEN I believe I have the right to voice my opposition to your heinous comments. This is where you cry "PC POLICE.... PC POLICE!!!1111!1!!!" Because you want to be able to say ridiculous stuff uncontested and that anyone who disagrees with you should not be allowed to speak. Hence the whining about the nonexistent PC police to try and shut them up.
Click to expand...

So you would vehemently support it if someone on here said that breastfeeding in public offends him, if it was coming from someone with a "right lean"? And you'd cheer like mad if the government banned that practice because it offends a few people, right?

I missed the posts that declare that someone should "not be allowed to speak". Can you point to those posts?

By the way, I'm not the poster who posted about the PC Police, but reading that post and applying it to this story, the PC Police in question were the federal judges, not the posters on this board.
 
poweRob said:
Actually its the opposite. I feel you have the right to say any heinous thing you want. The difference between you and I is that THEN I believe I have the right to voice my opposition to your heinous comments. This is where you cry "PC POLICE.... PC POLICE!!!1111!1!!!" Because you want to be able to say ridiculous stuff uncontested and that anyone who disagrees with you should not be allowed to speak. Hence the whining about the nonexistent PC police to try and shut them up.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
tres borrachos said:
So you would vehemently support it if someone on here said that breastfeeding in public offends him, if it was coming from someone with a "right lean"? And you'd cheer like mad if the government banned that practice because it offends a few people, right?

I missed the posts that declare that someone should "not be allowed to speak". Can you point to those posts?

By the way, I'm not the poster who posted about the PC Police, but reading that post and applying it to this story, the PC Police in question were the federal judges, not the posters on this board.
Click to expand...

dude... you are so straw manning BS. My point is anybody has the right to be offended anytime they want. And anybody has the right to say something in response to being offended or to offend. Quit whining. It's not very becoming.
 
poweRob said:
dude... you are so straw manning BS. My point is anybody has the right to be offended anytime they want. And anybody has the right to say something in response to being offended or to offend. Quit whining. It's not very becoming.
Click to expand...

"Dude" is a girl.

Where are the posts where anyone said someone shouldn't be allowed to speak (which is what you said, not me). No straw man. I'm asking you to link these posts that you said happened. I never saw them.

Nobody said people didn't have a right to be offended, did they? No, they didn't.

Luckily for you, the federal government had the chance to be the arbitor of the offense, didn't they? Something nobody in here did. They managed to police the Redskins back into political correctness.

Oh wow, that would make them the PC Police now, wouldn't it?
 
tres borrachos said:
"Dude" is a girl.
Click to expand...

My apologies

tres borrachos said:
Where are the posts where anyone said someone shouldn't be allowed to speak (which is what you said, not me). No straw man. I'm asking you to link these posts that you said happened. I never saw them.

Nobody said people didn't have a right to be offended, did they? No, they didn't.
Click to expand...

The whole thread's premise from mostly the right is that those offended by the Redskin logo shouldn't be heard or their voices should be dismissed out of hand. They where offended and they spoke up about it and now people are hating on them for being offended. I'm here saying you can say all the offensive crap you want and they can be offended all they want and neither of you should shut up. Everyone should show their true colors.

tres borrachos said:
Luckily for you, the federal government had the chance to be the arbitor of the offense, didn't they? Something nobody in here did. They managed to police the Redskins back into political correctness.

Oh wow, that would make them the PC Police now, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

And they spoke their piece to the patent office and now Snyder can appeal and make his case. Free speech is great ain't it?
 
poweRob said:
People on the right tend to be always offended. They are always outraged because they are always offended. And when nothing is out there that offends them that day, they fabricate something to be offended by so that they may be outraged. Then when that fabrication is debunked it turns into a "conspiracy" so that they may cling to their outrage and ignore the debunking.
Click to expand...

What a line you have.
Are you saying the "right" was behind the cancellation of the trademark for the Washington Redskins?

It seems you may have the right and left mixed up.:mrgreen:
 
mike2810 said:
What a line you have.
Are you saying the "right" was behind the cancellation of the trademark for the Washington Redskins?

It seems you may have the right and left mixed up.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm referring to this thread. Some natives were offended by the Redskin team name and if you peruse this thread for people pissed at these natives it's basically a whose who of many on the right in this forum. Even a few lefty's I suppose here and there but no where near as lock-step.

But what you are quoting me there was a more general statement not just about this Redskin controversy and I'll definitely stand by it.
 
poweRob said:
Not at all. I'm referring to this thread. Some natives were offended by the Redskin team name and if you peruse this thread for people pissed at these natives it's basically a whose who of many on the right in this forum. Even a few lefty's I suppose here and there but no where near as lock-step.
Click to expand...

thanks for the clarification.

I heard on the radio, (have not searched the web), that over 90% of Native Americans have no issue with the team name of Redskin.

What I find interesting, the name/trademark has been issued for 47 years. Now it seems its an issue. Makes no sense to me.

I have asked if the word redskin in association with the team has been used as a slur. No one has stated it has and provided a source.

We cannot please everyone. I would bet the owner will take this to court. They have won in the past.

I have also asked why trademarks like Florida Seminoles, Cleveland Indians, Alanta Braves are not being targeted. No real reply.
Seems at one time the calling someone an "indian" was a slur.
This is all PC being used for political gain.
 
mike2810 said:
Why is it now such an issue? seems the NFL has used the name since at least 1967.
Can you provide evidence that the name "Washington Redskins" has been used as a slur?
Click to expand...

Washington isn't in question here. It's the use of the term redskin.

My impression is that is demonstrated a proud/brave/warrior type.
Click to expand...

And this has already been shown to be nothing more than a whitewashing. Redskin has clear implications of race and little to do with "warrior".
 
tres borrachos said:
How kind of you. I never knew until this post that you were the one who authorized opinions on DP. The things I learned already!

I don't have to do research, Hatuey. I'll say it again. I have my opinion on what is "racist" and you have yours. I'm 52 and didn't fall off the turnip truck last week. You won't change mine, and I'm not trying to change yours. We disagree on this issue. Pretty simple. Have a great Thursday!
Click to expand...

And your opinion is based on nothing more than... well... nothing. Whereas mine is based on research. However, it's nice that you admit your opinion is uninformed. It's a positive step forward. Now, if we could only get through with that reading comprehension thing.
 
poweRob said:
Not at all. I'm referring to this thread. Some natives were offended by the Redskin team name and if you peruse this thread for people pissed at these natives it's basically a whose who of many on the right in this forum. Even a few lefty's I suppose here and there but no where near as lock-step.

But what you are quoting me there was a more general statement not just about this Redskin controversy and I'll definitely stand by it.
Click to expand...

Clarification - 5 natives were offended by the Redskin team name.

None of this changes the fact that the federal government sided with 5 offended people over millions who weren't offended. That is the very definition of PC Police.
 
Beaudreaux said:
This is just now being announced, so there isn't much out there yet:
Click to expand...

That is ****ing tyranny and absolute bias and this has been done for no other reason than for political reasons and because democrats are epic tyrants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom