• 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

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?

What I am saying is that in the past, no one thought twice about using "faggot" or "queer" in a derogatory fashion. Gay folks were a virtually invisible group. There was no resistance. The offense wasn't large enough for people to take notice or think was worth addressing. Even farther back people had the same attitude about using the n-word. When minority groups are marginalized in this fashion it takes people in the majority population to help get their cause noticed. It takes time to build up a resistance to the tyranny of the majority.
 
Makes you wonder what kind of emo kids are all butt-hurt over it, doesn't it? I've got Native American ancestors on my mother's side and I think this is pure attention-whoring.

I've got them too, not to mention the Native Americans that brought the suit probably have a few Native ancestors too.
 
Morning Pol. Right on.

Lost in this kerfuffle over the word is the Government stepping in to economically harm a legitimate organization because they feel like it.

Are so many really trying to claim they have no problem with Government applying subjective rulings by personal whim?

What's interesting too is the dissenting opinion on the matter from 1 of the 3 judges tasked with making this (ridiculous) decision. I forget his name but his dissent was online yesterday, and he said the petitioners (the 5 Native Americans) failed to prove that the term "Redskins" was disparaging at the time the trademarks were registered.
 
Of course it is. It is representative of a trait, and no more insulting than calling me a whiteskin. My skin is white (actually beige), but it's not an insult for someone to refer to my skin color. Now, if you call me a white mother****er, I'm going to be offended, but call me a white-skinned woman, bfd.

Actually, it's not. Braves or Warriors would be the same as any military based mascot. Blackhawk is a tribe (or at least part of one). "Redskin" is a derogatory term.
 
What I am saying is that in the past, no one thought twice about using "faggot" or "queer" in a derogatory fashion. Gay folks were a virtually invisible group. There was no resistance. The offense wasn't large enough for people to take notice or think was worth addressing. Even farther back people had the same attitude about using the n-word. When minority groups are marginalized in this fashion it takes people in the majority population to help get their cause noticed. It takes time to build up a resistance to the tyranny of the majority.

That doesn't answer my questions. PS I don't use either of those terms.

Do you think the Redskins were attempting to marginalize Native Americans, and since we both agree that the LGBT community has been denied equal rights, specifically what equal rights do you think Native Americans were being denied?
 
Of course it is. It is representative of a trait, and no more insulting than calling me a whiteskin. My skin is white (actually beige), but it's not an insult for someone to refer to my skin color. Now, if you call me a white mother****er, I'm going to be offended, but call me a white-skinned woman, bfd.

Not being a minority, you wouldn't understand.
 
There are a lot of progressive policies which are enabling...that's not to say they are racist. In fact, more whites benefit from them than black.

Fail

LOL

Sure thing there C. Let's check the latest.

Encourage invasion by peasants from foreign countries, and then tell the citizens who will be most impacted by their numbers to F off in the fallout from the policy.

Enslave, then throw away.

An awesome and epically racist policy of slow motion genocide. Congrats, Progressives deserve all the accolades for such an amazing agenda.

Remarkable how far Progs are willing to go for political expediency.
 
Of course it is. It is representative of a trait, and no more insulting than calling me a whiteskin. My skin is white (actually beige), but it's not an insult for someone to refer to my skin color. Now, if you call me a white mother****er, I'm going to be offended, but call me a white-skinned woman, bfd.

Because the labeling of you by skin color does not represent a threat at a social level. Being labeled by skin color as a minority carries with it social threat.

Let's not pretend everything is the same for you and a minority. Social power dynamics are important.
 
The school here in Ohio dropped the name about 15 years ago. They are now the Redhawks.

There are others all over the reservation schools in this country still using the nam. I posted an example a few pages back.
 
There are others all over the reservation schools in this country still using the nam. I posted an example a few pages back.

Citation?

I've seen this claim 5 times recently, and never a citation.
 
Of course it is. It is representative of a trait, and no more insulting than calling me a whiteskin. My skin is white (actually beige), but it's not an insult for someone to refer to my skin color. Now, if you call me a white mother****er, I'm going to be offended, but call me a white-skinned woman, bfd.
I don't even care if someone calls me a white mother****er. But, that's the benefit of privilege. If I wasn't white and some white mother****er called me redskin, he'd be lying on his back.
 
What I am saying is that in the past, no one thought twice about using "faggot" or "queer" in a derogatory fashion. Gay folks were a virtually invisible group. There was no resistance. The offense wasn't large enough for people to take notice or think was worth addressing. Even farther back people had the same attitude about using the n-word. When minority groups are marginalized in this fashion it takes people in the majority population to help get their cause noticed. It takes time to build up a resistance to the tyranny of the majority.

Offensive, or not, the patent office doesn't have the authority to regulate free speech.
 
That's interesting to see it in writing. I had heard the same thing, but never seen it in black and white. I don't see why anyone would give a flying leap what a sports team is called. We went though this about 10 years ago when all these PC goody two shoes tried to get the Braves name changed. Heck during the height of it, even some ESPN announcer were calling the Braves, the Bravos. What the heck is a Bravo?

Perhaps all these goody two shoes who want the name changed so bad would be better off to put all that energy into helping the Indians achieve a better life. They seem to think if the name is changed, then all is right with the world.

Calling the Braves the "Bravos" is not about a PC thing. It's like calling the 49ers the Niners.
 
I've got them too, not to mention the Native Americans that brought the suit probably have a few Native ancestors too.

And they got their 15 minutes of fame. Yay them.
 
Citation?

I've seen this claim 5 times, and never a citation.

Look a few pages back. The example I posted was from a Navajo reservation school district in AZ - 100% of the students are Navajo and live on the reservation. It was last night I posted it.
 
Is it bad to have red skin?
I think this is highly insulting.
Redskins-2.png


Duh?
 
Offensive, or not, the patent office doesn't have the authority to regulate free speech.

Which they didn't say that they couldn't use the name. Just that they lost some patent protection.

The Skins could even still win a civil suit, it only means that a patent infringement couldn't be brought in criminal court.
 
And they got their 15 minutes of fame. Yay them.

So your saying "I've got Native ancestry and I'm not offended" overrides their "I've got Native ancestry and I am offended?"
 
So you're saying it's bad to have red skin.

What color skin is it good to have?

I think it's bad to take a race of human beings as a mascot like we do lions and tigers and bears.
 
Last edited:
Look a few pages back. The example I posted was from a Navajo reservation school district in AZ - 100% of the students are Navajo and live on the reservation. It was last night I posted it.

If that's true, it's only one school.

I want a citation for "all over", "plenty of them", "everywhere" and other such claims.
 
Back
Top Bottom