• 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

tres borrachos said:
Wait - only minorities are allowed to be offended by something? Is that a new rule?
Click to expand...

Someone calling me a "cracker" or a "gringo" doesn't affect me like me calling a minority a racial epithet.
 
Thorgasm said:
No, it's a false equivalency.
Click to expand...

So if there was less whites in the country you would treat their offense differently? Sorry, but I really don't understand that.
 
Mason66 said:
I find N.W.A. offensive. I am sure I can find 4 people that think like me and have that musical groups patent pulled so anybody can sell items with their name on it.

Is the patent office going to be inundated with requests like this now?
Click to expand...

Good point. How about I find five friends--probably could right on this thread--who would join in a lawsuit--probably without any cost to us--to object to copyright protection of a lot of books promoting this or that or criticizing this or that in a way we find highly offensive. Or some of the rap music out there would have been banned 50 years ago and should be offensive to everybody. Or museums displaying art denigrating Christians or Christianity or some such as that? Would they take seriously a lawsuit that would withdraw protection from such unacceptable material that is offensive to so many?

It wouldn't prevent anybody from continuing to perform or buy the stuff. It would just make it financially unprofitable for those who originate it.
 
Last edited:
Thorgasm said:
:prof N.W.A was used because they couldn't get a copyright on the words actually spelled out.
Click to expand...

If it's actually the case that in these various instances it's the acronymns alone, and not the names, that are trademarked or copywritten, it would make for a very funny end around.

Washington Ready Enlightened Dashing Daring Super Kicking Intelligent Noble Scallywags.

Otherwise known as the Washington REDDSKINS.

;)
 
Henrin said:
So if there was less whites in the country you would treat their offense differently? Sorry, but I really don't understand that.
Click to expand...

I am sure you don't. I suppose you would have to walk a mile in a minority's shoes to understand the difference sociologically.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Good point. How about I find five friends--probably could right on this thread--who would join in a lawsuit--probably without any cost to us--to object to copyright protection of a lot of books promoting this or that or criticizing this or that in a way er find highly offensive. Or some of the rap music out there would have been banned 50 years ago and should be offensive to everybody. Or museums displaying art denigrating Christians or Christianity or some such as that? Would they take seriously a lawsuit that would withdraw protection from such unacceptable material that is offensive to so many?
Click to expand...

Whatever you have up your sleeve, count me in!
 
Zyphlin said:
If it's actually the case that in these various instances it's the acronymns alone, and not the names, that are trademarked or copywritten, it would make for a very funny end around.

Washington Ready Enlightened Dashing Daring Super Kicking Intelligent Noble Scallywags.

Otherwise known as the Washington REDDSKINS.

;)
Click to expand...

Actually, there might be a hangup with that. I can't get a copyright for "Empty V" because it sounds like "MTV".
 
tres borrachos said:
Cracker is a slur.

If 10% of the whites were offended by the term, is that good enough for you?
Click to expand...

Whites aren't a minority group. There's historical context to consider as well. That's why it is a false equivalency.
 
Thorgasm said:
I am sure you don't. I suppose you would have to walk a mile in a minority's shoes to understand the difference sociologically.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the problem is that I don't agree with your notion that hurt feelings should affect law. Or perhaps the problem is that I don't agree with your notion that groups of people should be treated differently.
 
tres borrachos said:
So the name isn't offensive, just the picture of the Indian with the feather and white paint?

Does this mean we will never see this image used again, or anything even remotely similar? I'm sure the Patent Office and every branch of the US government are going to prohibit the image of a man, obviously a Native American, with a feather on his head and white war paint. Is that right?

Those images will be striken from all school books (they're in there now by the way, I have 3 kids and know this)?
No manufacturer of Thanksgiving decorations will be allowed to use that kind of rendering?
No more Halloween costumes that even slightly resemble that?

Is that what we can expect from the government?
Click to expand...

I am sure the Indian nations will reluctantly agree to a financial settlement for permission to use that logo.
 
tres borrachos said:
Whatever you have up your sleeve, count me in!
Click to expand...

LOL. It is really tempting and I think I know an attorney or two so disgusted with this politically correctness crap that they would handle it pro bono for us, but dammit, it would require utilizing the very political correctness crap that I despise in order to do it. There has to be another way. I'll think on it. :)
 
Thorgasm said:
Someone calling me a "cracker" or a "gringo" doesn't affect me like me calling a minority a racial epithet.
Click to expand...

Using the logic and method of argument so often used with the Redskins name debate....so you'd say calling a woman a **** (the c version of twat) or Bitch shouldn't cause outrage because females aren't a minority in this country and thus it doesn't affect them like calling a minority a name.

Or shall we continue to move the goal post again, this time beyond simple "whose a minority/majority"
 
Thorgasm said:
Whites aren't a minority group. There's historical context to consider as well. That's why it is a false equivalency.
Click to expand...

So because I'm white, I have no right to be offended by any slur against me, that's what you're saying?
 
Mason66 said:
Some people do have blue skin, when they are choking and about to die.

I don't think it is good to have blue skin.
Click to expand...

But can you deny that Papa Smurf was a really great guy?
 
MasterLiberty said:
This is stupid... and an overreach of government authority. Truth is though I expect this type of bull from a LibDem Executive branch, they pander to minorities and the uninformed in order to solodify their own power in DC this is nothing more than the Exec Branch flexing their 'Muscles' while trying to push their PC agenda.

Lets remember the context with which the name 'redskin' is used here. To the Redskins the name is something STRONG and POWERFUL it is a symbol of the WARRIOR and something their fans take much pride in. I have native american ancestry myself (1/16th cherokee) and I take no offense to the term at all. Native Americans should take pride in the fact there are so many sportsteams that use their names (or nicknames) for their teams because it shows that modern owners and fans still associate STRENGTH, PRIDE, and FEARLESSNESS with Native Americans.

That said while the trademark is being wrongfully stripped if I were the Redskins I would get an estimate on how much money this action by the Trademark Office is costing the team per day, then I would recoup those losses in Court and sue for the cost of attorneys as well. The redskins should make the fed pay through the nose for this.
Click to expand...

If it were me, I would name the 5 people that brought this action in the first place and make them prove damages by me using the name.
 
Zyphlin said:
Using the logic and method of argument so often used with the Redskins name debate....so you'd say calling a woman a **** (the c version of twat) or Bitch shouldn't cause outrage because females aren't a minority in this country and thus it doesn't affect them like calling a minority a name.

Or shall we continue to move the goal post again, this time beyond simple "whose a minority/majority"
Click to expand...

Thank you for not typing out that word. I hate it.

And you are 1000% correct. I defy anyone to tell me I shouldn't be offended by that word just because as a woman, I'm not in the minority.

I'd like to see that logic stand up in court if my boss calls me that word in front of a room of people.
 
tres borrachos said:
So because I'm white, I have no right to be offended by any slur against me, that's what you're saying?
Click to expand...

Apparently if the race you belong to reaches the point where it is the majority your offense to things doesn't matter.
 
Mason66 said:
If it were me, I would name the 5 people that brought this action in the first place and make them prove damages by me using the name.
Click to expand...

That's what the dissenting judge's objection was. He said they presented no evidence of it.

This was a ruling by emotion - nothing more, nothing less.

I hope Snyder sues the pants off someone.
 
Thorgasm said:
If <1% were offended (the mod team) I would have to change it. Of course, I'm not sure who I am marginalizing and profiting off of. ;)
Click to expand...

Is that what you are worried about, that the team is profiting off of the name and image?

It always comes back to money.
 
Thorgasm said:
Zyphlin suggests that people might boycott if they did change their name.
Click to expand...

Actually, changing their name will be the worst thing that could happen to Americas Indians. Take away this little cause, and the few people that pretend to give a **** about them won't even have that.
 
Thorgasm said:
I am illustrating the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

So the minority should decide everything now?

You want a country kind of like, Oh I don't know, Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom