• 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!

Is Redskin a slur? [W:282]

Is Redskin a slur?

  • Total voters
    96
Verax said:
I'm curious what percentage of people think Redskin is a slur separate from whether or not the team's name should be changed.

I think a lot of people are so used to the Redskin name they don't even think of it as a slur because they see it simply as a descriptor of Native Americans or of its heritage and never thought of it as an insult.
Click to expand...

Does it matter what we think?!

It`s what native Americans think of it that matters!
 
The German said:
Does it matter what we think?!

It`s what native Americans think of it that matters!
Click to expand...
As demonstrated repeatedly in this and other Red Skins threads, what the majority of tribal nation members think about the name of this football team is entirely irrelevant for a variety of reasons. I don't happen to agree but there it is.
 
Should Oklahoma change its state name, too? Just wondering. You may want to look up what it means.
 
Threegoofs said:
I dont know why the analogy to the Chinks is not understood by you.

Seems pretty clear to me. It also is starting to become clear that you are labeling it as a non parallel because you cant challenge it rationally.
Click to expand...

Don't say chink in the NBA.
 
tres borrachos said:
How many of them oppose the name?
Click to expand...

One guy on a different thread posted a poll in which the majority of 800 asked native Americans do not oppose the name.

Thing is, there are 6 000 000 native Americans.
 
The German said:
One guy on a different thread posted a poll in which the majority of 800 asked native Americans do not oppose the name.

Thing is, there are 6 000 000 native Americans.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you do know there is no such thing as a poll which was conducted of 100% of whatever target group they were studying? When Gallup releases its healthcare polls, do you think they speak to all 300+ Americans? Polls are a social science.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, and you do know there is no such thing as a poll which was conducted of 100% of whatever target group they were studying? When Gallup releases its healthcare polls, do you think they speak to all 300+ Americans? Polls are a social science.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about healthcare or wether or not redskin is a racial slur?
 
The German said:
Are we talking about healthcare or wether or not redskin is a racial slur?
Click to expand...

We were talking about polls, were we not?

Here is your post:

One guy on a different thread posted a poll in which the majority of 800 asked native Americans do not oppose the name.

Thing is, there are 6 000 000 native Americans.

So your second statement was irrelevant if you were making it as a means of objecting to the poll you were talking about.
 
Arbo said:
He described to you how polling is done, the subject doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

He is a she.

And these numbers are significant.

Besides all that, most native American representative organisations oppose the name "Redskins".

And they really shouldnt care what inbreed white trash, or overly priviliged posh kids who never worked a day of their entire lives until dentist dady had funded them through college, think about it.

And as a metter of fact, they shouldnt even care about what I think of it.

It is their cultural identety, so it is their decision to make.
 
tres borrachos said:
We were talking about polls, were we not?

Here is your post:

One guy on a different thread posted a poll in which the majority of 800 asked native Americans do not oppose the name.

Thing is, there are 6 000 000 native Americans.

So your second statement was irrelevant if you were making it as a means of objecting to the poll you were talking about.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your statement was irrelevant as it suddently tried to bring healthcare into the conversation.
 
Wiggen said:
Again, whether or not you find it offensive is immaterial. If native americans find it offensive, it matters.
Click to expand...

So 'offensive' and 'slur' is the same thing to you? Anything that is 'offensive' to somebody is justification to demand that it not exist? Does that include such things that are offensive to some such as 'gay marriage' or 'bi-lingual requirements' or a lot of rap music or adult bookstores or certain politicians or the way my neighbor dresses when he goes to church or the grocery store or my uncovered head in the presence of Muslims or the guy passing out religious pamphlets on the street corner? Whatever 'offends' us but does not bother the vast majority of Americans justifies that it not be allowed? Or should there be some evidence of harm or damages or negative consequences before somebody is required to cease and desist whatever is offensive to another?
 
The German said:
Nope. Your statement was irrelevant as it suddently tried to bring healthcare into the conversation.
Click to expand...

You were making the argument that the poll couldn't be trusted because it was only 800 out of 6 million. It was obvious that you don't know anything about how polls are conducted so I helped bring you up to speed.

Let's leave healthcare out of it since that had thrown you off. Here you go:

You do know that when Gallup/Annenberg/Rasmussen/Wapo etc. etc. conduct a poll, they only poll a small sample and then apply social science to the data to determine the larger results, as they are unable to poll every single person who may or may not be impacted by or have an answer to the poll question/questions.
 
tres borrachos said:
He is a she.;)
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry. I barely even look to the left to see who posted when I respond…. please forgive me.

The German said:
Besides all that, most native American representative organisations oppose the name "Redskins".
Click to expand...

Either you understand how polling works, or you do not. It appears you merely want to ignore it.

Teachers unions 'represent' 'all' teachers as well, right? Yet they continually use dues for political things that not all of their members support… So just pointing out that even an organization does not always reflect the beliefs of all the people it represents.
 
AlbqOwl said:
So 'offensive' and 'slur' is the same thing to you? Anything that is 'offensive' to somebody is justification to demand that it not exist? Does that include such things that are offensive to some such as 'gay marriage' or 'bi-lingual requirements' or a lot of rap music or adult bookstores or certain politicians or the way my neighbor dresses when he goes to church or the grocery store or my uncovered head in the presence of Muslims or the guy passing out religious pamphlets on the street corner? Whatever 'offends' us but does not bother the vast majority of Americans justifies that it not be allowed? Or should there be some evidence of harm or damages or negative consequences before somebody is required to cease and desist whatever is offensive to another?
Click to expand...

I find politicians offensive. Can we ban them?
 
Arbo said:
Oops, sorry. I barely even look to the left to see who posted when I respond…. please forgive me.



Either you understand how polling works, or you do not. It appears you merely want to ignore it.

Teachers unions 'represent' 'all' teachers as well, right? Yet they continually use dues for political things that not all of their members support… So just pointing out that even an organization does not always reflect the beliefs of all the people it represents.
Click to expand...

Nothing to forgive. I don't consider being called "he" a slur.;)
 
If a group does find the term "redskins" offensive, why don't they, instead of spending money on lawyers, spend money rebranding the word to mean something positive? I'm pretty sure the Redskins organization would be willing to provide funding for such an endeavor.

Oh, wait, that would involve working together to find a win-win solution.

How long do you think a comedian will have to wait before it is safe for them to joke that the "redskins" are just looking for another way to fight the white man? Or, also historically relevant, how the "redskins" are just looking for another way to fight other "redskins?"
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
You were making the argument that the poll couldn't be trusted because it was only 800 out of 6 million. It was obvious that you don't know anything about how polls are conducted so I helped bring you up to speed.

Let's leave healthcare out of it since that had thrown you off. Here you go:

You do know that when Gallup/Annenberg/Rasmussen/Wapo etc. etc. conduct a poll, they only poll a small sample and then apply social science to the data to determine the larger results, as they are unable to poll every single person who may or may not be impacted by or have an answer to the poll question/questions.
Click to expand...

And you do know why psychology is not accepted by many in the fields of medicine and biology as a natural science?

Because sampling opinions out of human resources is so unpredictably subject to change that studies are inconclusive.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
If a group does find the term "redskins" offensive, why don't they, instead of spending money on lawyers, spend money rebranding the word to mean something positive? I'm pretty sure the Redskins organization would be willing to provide funding for such an endeavor.

Oh, wait, that would involve working together to find a win-win solution.

How long do you think a comedian will have to wait before it is safe for them to joke that the "redskins" are just looking for another way to fight the white man?
Click to expand...

A win win is never on the agenda when political correctness can be arbitrated by a panel of judges.;)
 
The German said:
Because sampling opinions out of human resources is so unpredictably subject to change that studies are inconclusive.
Click to expand...

We will all take note that you will never, ever, use a poll to support any of your positions. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom