• 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

Your Star said:
The point of my original post was to tell you that your opinion on this means jack ****. You can't decide what is disparaging to another group of people; that isn't how it works.. You may have an opinion on it and voice that opinion, but it means absolutely nothing when it comes to acknowledging whether or not that word is offensive to the group it is aimed at.
Click to expand...

I never claimed otherwise, did I? No.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, that and that the majority of the ones that weren't killed off hadn't been in favor of changing the name.

Part of why the previous attempt by the PTO to remove trademark protection was overturned was because the courts found that they did not have sufficient evidence to suggest that the word met the criteria for disparaging. There was not evidence that a significant enough portion of the potentialy affected population found the word in such a usage to be disparaging.

The question for the courts will essentially be whether or not there NOW is enough evidence to suggest this. To the opposition to the names credit, unlike last time they have the support of the National Congress of American Indians on their side stating that it is offensive and should be changed, and that group represents roughly 30% of native americans in the country. Now, it'd be incorrect to suggest that such a thing means 30% of native americans oppose the name but it is reasonble to say that the representatives for 30% of the population suggest it's offensive. Which may or may not ultimately be enough to rule that a large enough portion of the population feels that it's disparaging.

But the reason it wasn't previously was, in part, because there was no evidence that a significant portion of the Native American population found the use of "Redskins" by the Washington Redskins to be offensive.
Click to expand...

You're a Skins fan, yes?

What do you think Snyder will ultimately do? Change the name, or leave it? Just curious what the buzz is among their fans (if you know of any).
 
I think it's time euro-Americans started standing up for themselves and slapping down all the racist scum calling them "white people".
 
Papa bull said:
I think it's time euro-Americans started standing up for themselves and slapping down all the racist scum calling them "white people".
Click to expand...

When there is a team called the Hartford WASPs or the Boston Palefaces wake me.
 
calamity said:
When there is a team called the Hartford WASPs or the Boston Palefaces wake me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
calamity said:
Uh, what?

If an American Indian feels calling him a redskin is offensive, he's infringing on your right to call him a redskin. Really?
Click to expand...

o_O

That has nothing to do with what I said.

A poster said that the name wasn't Disparaging.

You Star stated that said person doesn't get to "decide" what is disparaging to another group.

I pointed out that said logic applies to those who are not native american claiming that it's offensive to "Native American's" in a BROAD sense. And as such I'd hope she'd have the same kind of venom to people "deciding" what is disparaging for Native Americans in the opposite way of the person she was going after as well.

The reality is that there is not uniformed concensus across the entire group, and there's evidence to suggest that a majority of Native Americans do NOT find the name of the football team disparaging. Claiming that it's not disparaging to native americans in a broad sense is no more "deciding" for that group then stating it IS disparaging to them in a broad sense.
 
calamity said:
Uh, what?

If an American Indian feels calling him a redskin is offensive, he's infringing on your right to call him a redskin. Really?
Click to expand...

Does that mean Libbos are going to stop dispareging Conservatives by calling us racists everytime we look up?
 
apdst said:
Does that mean Libbos are going to stop dispareging Conservatives by calling us racists everytime we look up?
Click to expand...
How can they do that when so many Conservatives are racists?
 
tres borrachos said:
Why, would those bother you? They wouldn't bother me.
Click to expand...
None of it bothers me. That's why I don't have a dog in this fight. However, common sense clearly shows that "Redskin" is an offensive term. And, I usually follow common sense.
 
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

It's troublesome that people think it's perfectly fine to alienate and marginalize 10% of a population. The times are changing. 10 years ago 59% of people polled opposed same sex marriage. Today, 59% polled support it. The LGBT community is less than 10% of the population. Look how long it was okay to marginalize and alienate them.

As far as the First Amendment goes, can anyone recite the first five words of that amendment?
 
Zyphlin said:
o_O

That has nothing to do with what I said.

A poster said that the name wasn't Disparaging.

You Star stated that said person doesn't get to "decide" what is disparaging to another group.

I pointed out that said logic applies to those who are not native american claiming that it's offensive to "Native American's" in a BROAD sense. And as such I'd hope she'd have the same kind of venom to people "deciding" what is disparaging for Native Americans in the opposite way of the person she was going after as well.

The reality is that there is not uniformed concensus across the entire group, and there's evidence to suggest that a majority of Native Americans do NOT find the name of the football team disparaging. Claiming that it's not disparaging to native americans in a broad sense is no more "deciding" for that group then stating it IS disparaging to them in a broad sense.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I took your post out of context.
 
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...

You are upset that you can't use "faggot"?
 
calamity said:
How can they do that when so many Conservatives are racists?
Click to expand...

Ok, so by YOUR logic, are actual racists are justified because they believe so many black folks are niggers?
 
tres borrachos said:
Why, would those bother you? They wouldn't bother me.
Click to expand...

So, the worthless identity grievance mongers have taken over the patent office as well. What a sorry sorry government we have these days.
 
tres borrachos said:
You're a Skins fan, yes?

What do you think Snyder will ultimately do? Change the name, or leave it? Just curious what the buzz is among their fans (if you know of any).
Click to expand...

I hope they keep the name! This is so ridiculous when five people out of thousands of native Americans can force a change like this when the rest, who have been surveyed, have no problem with it. This just looks to me like an attempt on the part of government to give yet another business a hard time! :thumbdown:

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:
 
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...

Hypocrisy abounds! :lamo
 
ocean515 said:
If racist bigots call others racist, does it count, or does it cancel each other out?
Click to expand...

Racially speaking: The most annoying thing about conservatives is their constant whining about reverse discrimination.
 
calamity said:
Racially speaking: The most annoying thing about conservatives is their constant whining about reverse discrimination.
Click to expand...

We whine about reverse racism? :lamo
 
polgara said:
I hope they keep the name! This is so ridiculous when five people out of thousands of native Americans can force a change like this when the rest, who have been surveyed, have no problem with it. This just looks to me like an attempt on the part of government to give yet another business a hard time! :thumbdown:

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Greetings Pol! I also hope they keep the name. It will be interesting to see what happens here.
 
Thorgasm said:
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

It's troublesome that people think it's perfectly fine to alienate and marginalize 10% of a population. The times are changing. 10 years ago 59% of people polled opposed same sex marriage. Today, 59% polled support it. The LGBT community is less than 10% of the population. Look how long it was okay to marginalize and alienate them.

As far as the First Amendment goes, can anyone recite the first five words of that amendment?
Click to expand...

Thor, how are you equating the LGBT/SSM issue with this? Do you think the Redskins are attempting to marginalize Native Americans in any way shape or form? Do you think they were being denied equal rights somehow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom