• 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

What could they possibly change the name to that wouldn't suck? There is no replacing the "Redskins" name.
 
Mosby said:
What could they possibly change the name to that wouldn't suck? There is no replacing the "Redskins" name.
Click to expand...
Washington Lobbyists.
 
How about instead of having the Redskins change their names, we just change other teams' names? You know, create the Whiteskins, the Brownskins, the Yellowskins...
 
unbelievable, A trademark holder, who used all due diligence, paid all fees, kept it in force, is overturned on the WHIM of some board.

An administrative law judge can do that, but to leave it to a bunch of bureaucrats?? Government work means never having to say you're sorry.

Too bad, we capriciously removed your intellectual rights for you, you loose because we caved to PC.
 
Zyphlin said:
The Cleveland Browns was named in reference to Brownies, a mythical race of pixie like fey. While laughably ridiculous as the name of a FOOTBALL team, it's not referencing a race. So this is kind of a strange argument.

That said, apparently as long as 10% of a population that one can declare a "minority" is offended by something, regardless of the legitimacy of the reason for that offense, that's enough for some people so who knows.



To be fair, individuals here and there have been fighting the name for many years. It's just getting greater attention currently, likely because the Redskins became nationally relevant again recently. Not surprising, the last time this got a lot of coverage was during the Redskin's Super Bowl era; however, news was not nearly as ubiqutious as it is now.



Tell me this was a joke as opposed to a legitimate statement. The "Cracker" in Cracker Barrel isn't referring to white people.
Click to expand...

I see it as a case of "political correctness gone mad".
 
radcen said:
There is no organized group, no. There are, however, individuals who view themselves as such and act accordingly. To deny this is to be willfully obtuse.
Click to expand...

There certainly are an enormous number of them.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL. So there you go. You can't address the basic issue of the government arbitrarily damaging a legitimate business, because they felt like it, so you return to 5th grade.

Probably should have left it alone, rather than prove your inability to look at the issue objectively.
Click to expand...

Arbitrarily huh?

Of the two of us I'm the only one being objective. You are debating on the emotion of the topic and how it makes you feel.
 
poweRob said:
Arbitrarily huh?

Of the two of us I'm the only one being objective. You are debating on the emotion of the topic and how it makes you feel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing how you feel about what I have or haven't been doing. LOL. :peace
 
poweRob said:
so you believe that the 5 who brought it were not offended?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think they were offended. Look at all of the non-Native Americans who are offended on this board alone.

I also didn't think people could lose trademarks (which have financial value) because 5 people are offended, and I only have the 1 judges' say so that from the burden of proof (which is required in any legal case), the plaintiffs didn't provide the proof to make this decision.
 
tres borrachos said:
Not at all. I think they were offended. Look at all of the non-Native Americans who are offended on this board alone.

I also didn't think people could lose trademarks (which have financial value) because 5 people are offended, and I only have the 1 judges' say so that from the burden of proof (which is required in any legal case), the plaintiffs didn't provide the proof to make this decision.
Click to expand...
For the most part I don't see blacks or Hispanics getting all worked up over this issue. I suspect that the percentage of white people offended by the term is larger than the percentage of Native Americans. Hence, this is a textbook example of: White Liberal Guilt
 
tres borrachos said:
Not at all. I think they were offended. Look at all of the non-Native Americans who are offended on this board alone.

I also didn't think people could lose trademarks (which have financial value) because 5 people are offended, and I only have the 1 judges' say so that from the burden of proof (which is required in any legal case), the plaintiffs didn't provide the proof to make this decision.
Click to expand...

I believe the patent office was shown that those offended ranged in the 35% - 45% area. This is the case brought to them. The patent office then on the information brought to them decided that it was offensive to a substantial number of people. Not just to the five that brought the case.

When Slang Becomes a Slur - Geoffrey Nunberg - The Atlantic
 
poweRob said:
I believe the patent office was shown that those offended ranged in the 35% - 45% area. This is the case brought to them. The patent office then on the information brought to them decided that it was offensive to a substantial number of people. Not just to the five that brought the case.

When Slang Becomes a Slur - Geoffrey Nunberg - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

Okay, but the dissenting judge said otherwise (which is what I posted, not saying he was right or wrong, just what he said). He said there was no proof presented. Just repeating his words.
 
radcen said:
For the most part I don't see blacks or Hispanics getting all worked up over this issue. I suspect that the percentage of white people offended by the term is larger than the percentage of Native Americans. Hence, this is a textbook example of: White Liberal Guilt
Click to expand...

It's funny, but I usually avoid the use of "White Liberal Guilt" but then issues like this come up (and reparations for blacks, etc.). Just look at some of the posts in this thread. We owe the Native Americans this and we owe them that because of what "we" did to them in the past. Those posts, and the calls for reparations in other threads, epitomize White Liberal Guilt. Some people apparently feel guilty because of things other whites did to other peoples of color. It's as real as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
 
tres borrachos said:
Not at all. I think they were offended. Look at all of the non-Native Americans who are offended on this board alone.

I also didn't think people could lose trademarks (which have financial value) because 5 people are offended, and I only have the 1 judges' say so that from the burden of proof (which is required in any legal case), the plaintiffs didn't provide the proof to make this decision.
Click to expand...


Political correctness means offending the many for the sake of the few.
 
tres borrachos said:
Okay, but the dissenting judge said otherwise (which is what I posted, not saying he was right or wrong, just what he said). He said there was no proof presented. Just repeating his words.
Click to expand...

I can see both sides of this. Like I said before, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't want to see either side dismissed out of hand. I want both of them heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom