• 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

ecofarm said:
White men are not oppressed. Why must so many of them play the victim. Pooor white victims! Won't someone do something to help them?!

I swear I see more white people cry victim than minorities. It's like the ratio of actual oppression to complaints is inverse. Who even has time for minority complaints these days; the wails of middle-aged white hetero men drown out actual suffering.
Click to expand...

It is a shame you missed the point.

You and the other poster are saying that if at any time in history a group has been discriminated against, then they have a right now to complain about anything they want.

So my question stands.
 
ecofarm said:
The issue is social power, not numbers. You really shouldn't be confused.
Click to expand...

If it was this then Thors argument would also be failing.

His argument started complaining about the tyranny of the majority as it relates to the fact that a minority of Native Americans seemingly find the name offensive to the point of believing it should be changed. HOWEVER, said NUMERICAL minority by and large actually control a great deal of the societal power within the native american population as leaders of things like the National Congress of American Indians.

So apparently when it suits Thor's purpose "Minority" means numbers...when it doesn't suit his purposes then it's "social power" instead of numbers. Highlighting my point that his argument is a giant wash of BS and emotional twattle that is boiled down largely to "I'll find a way to declare groups that I feel deserve to be protected/heard a 'minority' and groups that I don't feel deserve such won't be afforded the same notion"
 
Hatuey said:
If I don't find the word slut derogatory, is it no longer derogatory? Of course not because words have a history behind their usage, context, inference, origins, etc..
Click to expand...

Nigger is a derogatory term unless used by black guys to black guys... it is NO LONGER derogatory. Same thing here.
 
Zyphlin said:
If it was this then Thors argument would also be failing.

His argument started complaining about the tyranny of the majority as it relates to the fact that a minority of Native Americans seemingly find the name offensive to the point of believing it should be changed. HOWEVER, said NUMERICAL minority by and large actually control a great deal of the societal power within the native american population as leaders of things like the National Congress of American Indians.

So apparently when it suits Thor's purpose "Minority" means numbers...when it doesn't suit his purposes then it's "social power" instead of numbers. Highlighting my point that his argument is a giant wash of BS and emotional twattle that is boiled down largely to "I'll find a way to declare groups that I feel deserve to be protected/heard a 'minority' and groups that I don't feel deserve such won't be afforded the same notion"
Click to expand...

Another error.

You must consider the social aspects from the tertiary level, national or global. Smaller scales are not relevant. The inability to escape injustice is key in defining social dynamics.
 
Zyphlin said:
If it was this then Thors argument would also be failing.

His argument started complaining about the tyranny of the majority as it relates to the fact that a minority of Native Americans seemingly find the name offensive to the point of believing it should be changed. HOWEVER, said NUMERICAL minority by and large actually control a great deal of the societal power within the native american population as leaders of things like the National Congress of American Indians.

So apparently when it suits Thor's purpose "Minority" means numbers...when it doesn't suit his purposes then it's "social power" instead of numbers. Highlighting my point that his argument is a giant wash of BS and emotional twattle that is boiled down largely to "I'll find a way to declare groups that I feel deserve to be protected/heard a 'minority' and groups that I don't feel deserve such won't be afforded the same notion"
Click to expand...

There is often power in numbers. I'm not sure what your point is about the National Congress of American Indians. Who are they alienating?
 
Thorgasm said:
That's because people are throwing up false equivalencies.
Click to expand...

Amazing you're suddenly getting upset about this...despite the continual attempt by many to throw up a false equivilency to "nigger" and "redskin". Or the false equivilency of saying that calling a raped woman a "slut" and claiming you meant "kitchen maid" is the same as what the Washington Redskins are doing with "Redskin".

You're arguing against false equivilancies? Well that's all fine and good, but if your argument against it is flawed then it's flawed regardless if the intent behind the argument is right.

You're correct, all things AREN'T equal. But that doesn't change the fact you're arbitrarily changing the bar for how you're measuring things to fit your agenda and yet attempting to act like you're somehow being consistent. I'm not saying you have to view all things as equal, I'm suggesting it's dishonest of you to act like people are suggesting things must be equal if they simply point out the flaws in your logic of how you're deeming them unequal.

I have stated that it is not okay to disparage anyone.
Click to expand...

But you've stated that there should not be outrage over a non-minority being disparaged. You've also indicated that someone speaking disparaging to a non-minority does not "affect" them the same as doing it to a minority.

You also defined "minority" based on NUMBERS at one point, suggesting that "10%" of a minority population (a NUMBER) is enough that it must be respected due to the rights of the minority. So I pointed out a case based on NUMBERS of females NOT being a minority and suggested that...by your logic...there should not be outrage over using a slur towards them and that it shouldn't "affect" them the same way that it affects a minority.

This was not a "false equivilency", this was using the standards, words, and logic YOU put forward. And then you decided to change things up because suddenly your previous measure of "minority" didn't work for the new example so you had to shift it. Going directly to the point I made prior to you doing that....which was that the notion of "Owwww, the poor minorities! No tyranny of the majority" was a cobbled together emotional plea that was not based on any actual principle but was simply an ever moving idea that shifted based on agenda, not any kind of actual logic.

Calling a white person a "cracker" is not the same thing as calling a black person the n-word.
Click to expand...

And a 80 year old team named The Redskins is not the same as naming a team today the Niggers, but your seeming annoyance with false equivilancies sure doesn't get you complaining about that.

You're not getting an argument from me on the notion that cracker isn't equal to nigger. It's not. I've said that many times on this forum. Context matters.

The world is not binary. There are shades of grey.
Click to expand...

Absolutley. Difference being I actually generally acknowledge that consistently, not just when it suits me.
 
I think the Redskins should get rid of the name.

I don't think the government should force them to get of the name or take away their trademark protection for content/ideological reasons.

I was aware that the government censors the name of alcoholic beverages, but I never heard of them restricting trademarks for content/ideological reasons.
 
No, they should keep the name and one things for sure, this will go through appeal and they will get their licenses a s trademarks back.

How is Redskin anymore disparaging than " Indian " ?
 
The funny thing about this is that really the Redskins have one big person to point a finger at (other than their horrible PR staff) for all this crap to be flowing so significantly the past little bit...

Robert Griffin III

Had the team not mortgaged the future (rightfully in my opinion btw) to grab their first Franchise Quarterback since LT shattered the leg of the last one, and in doing so been thrust into a division championship for the first time this century, I don't think this issue would've garnered any more attention then it has for the past two decades. Griffin rocketed the Skins back into national relevance as a team and into the national spotlight, and that meant page views and ratings for Redskin related things. And nothing is better for getting page clicks and ratings than controversy.
 
ecofarm said:
White men are not oppressed. Why must so many of them play the victim. Pooor white victims! Won't someone do something to help them?!

I swear I see more white people cry victim than minorities. It's like the ratio of actual oppression to complaints is inverse. Who even has time for minority complaints these days; the wails of middle-aged white hetero men drown out actual suffering.
Click to expand...

Because all men are equal.
 
Hatuey said:
Is there anyone in your household that I can speak to? Someone slightly older. I really do. You obviously do not understand what is being said and basically pick sections of posts to go after so that your arguments don't seem so ridiculous. So yes, I need you to get off the computer and put someone on who has had enough adult level discussions that they don't feel a need to do that.
Click to expand...

The only one here older than I am is my husband, by 6 months. He said he's not interested in debating another poster's posts with you either and knows that netiquette says you don't get to demand that one poster discuss what another poster posted. So looks like you're SOL.
 
tres borrachos said:
The only one here older than I am is my husband, by 6 months. He said he's not interested in debating another poster's posts with you either and knows that netiquette says you don't get to demand that one poster discuss what another poster posted. So looks like you're SOL.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not understand what is actually being said at all. You keep moving the argument towards non-existing demands for you to discuss another poster's comments when in fact it was part of a much, much larger post showing why your initial argument was wrong. What part of that don't you understand?
 
Thorgasm said:
That's because people are throwing up false equivalencies. All things are not equal. Blondes did not get kicked off their land and were not killed in droves.(Easy Blonde) White people were not enslaved. (Cracker Barrel)

I have stated that it is not okay to disparage anyone. But I'm not going to pretend that all things are equal when they aren't. Calling a white person a "cracker" is not the same thing as calling a black person the n-word. The world is not binary. There are shades of grey. I would appreciate if you would be honest about this. I didn't say it was okay or not bad. You are the one beating down a strawman.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They are not false equivalencies. Let me remind that you earlier today you were all for the name change because 10% complaining was good enough for you.

If it offends me to see "Easy Blonde", it isn't relevant what happened to blondes anywhere in this country or anywhere else in history. It offends me, and if it offends 10% of blondes, that should be good enough for you. It also offends me to be called "Cracker" and if it offends 10% of white people, that should be good enough for you.

Blondes never got kicked off their land and killed in droves? White people were never enslaved? You sure about that? You may want to check some history books there, Thor. Both statements are false. Those things happened many times in this world's history to many people, blondes and whites.

By the way, I never called anyone the "N" word and nobody was suggesting changing the name of the Redskins to another name that may offend anyone, so no, there is no "grey".

I never kicked anyone off their land, never enslaved anyone. I have just as much right to be offended by anything as black Americans or Native Americans do.

Is this all about assuaging someone else's guilt? I have no guilt about what happened to either of those groups. My parents were both first generation Americans, and both were the product of parents who migrated to the USA because of oppressions, starvation, land grabbing, and other nasty acts perpetated against them and their people.
 
Hatuey said:
You obviously do not understand what is actually being said at all. You keep moving the argument towards non-existing demands for you to discuss another poster's comments when in fact it was part of a much, much larger post showing why your initial argument was wrong. What part of that don't you understand?
Click to expand...

Oh, so now it's all about that my initial argument was wrong? Then FFS say that and man up and stop referring to comments made by another poster. I am not Grim. What part of that do you not understand? If your beef is with my initial argument, then Grim's comment is irrelevant.

What a waste of my time doing this.
 
ecofarm said:
Before the law but not before society. Hello, welcome to the awareness of racism.
Click to expand...

And sexism. And prejudice against people of religion, like Christians and Muslims. And ageism.

Do you see the removal of the Redskin patent as some sort of victory, a blow to "racism"?

How many white men on this board complained about the Native Americans and reverse discrimination against them to make way for Native Americans?
 
tres borrachos said:
How many white men on this board complained about the Native Americans and reverse discrimination against them to make way for Native Americans?
Click to expand...

"They're destroying the team!!11!!"
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh, so now it's all about that my initial argument was wrong?
Click to expand...

If you stopped focusing on the little bits of posts you want to pick a personal fight with, you'd have realized that about 10 pages ago. I'm sure I've stated this in various forms:

You obviously do not understand what is being said and basically pick sections of posts to go after so that your arguments don't seem so ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
Alright, so now that your first argument (because members of the race use it, it's not derogatory) has been completely exposed as ridiculous. You've shifted gears into a snarky "Well you should go tell them!" - Why should I? People are educated every single day about the use of this word and its historical implications. Hell, it was exposed so easy all it took were other examples of a race using racist institutions, vocabulary and infrastructure without really understanding the social and cultural and implications that come along with their usage.

So now you've shifted it into... well "I never exterminated anyone". Nobody claimed you had. I simply pointed out the incredible irony and self serving bs mentality that is required for praising the "fighting spirit" of a people that were exterminated while being called redskins. Specially when the praising comes in the form of naming a football team.... that makes money off a highly fictionalized account of Native American cultures..... the "Redskins".
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
Look C.B., your comparisons simply aren't even remotely the same. The Vikings? What ethnic group currently living in North America are they named after? None? Alright. Moving on. The point of your argument was a weak one. If some NAs like it, why is it slur and why is it bad to use it? Actually, it was a slur before they started using it. Arbo provided the context in which the word has been used for the past 200 years, though it has gone back and forth for about half that time, the last 100 years it has been covered with the same noble savage, violent savage tinge that idealizes NAs without seriously looking at the effects of that word. Now, you can keep complaining and complaining - but it's a slur. It's no different than nigger or mick or slut or even guinea. It's a slur. There is nothing positive about it and that it's still being used perpetuates false stereotypes of that ... what was it? "Fighting spirit" Grim talked about. You know, the fighting spirit that got 25 million of them exterminated. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
Yes, and her statement was something along the lines of "How can it be racist if Native Americans like it?" - well, that's just ridiculous. Black people flocked to the Negro League games. That didn't make their creation any less racist or the result of a racist process. The whole concept of naming a team after a race of people is alien to me though. I simply don't see how a person can claim that there is nothing "racial" or even "racialist" about trying to make money on the backs of romanticized noble savage memorabilia that nobody in the team has any relation to. The fact that they expect no criticism for it is kind of like those black people who set up Chinese restaurants and then expect no criticism when people point out some of the food isn't even Chinese.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I've pointed this fact out numerous times in the last 6 pages.

Then FFS say that and man up and stop referring to comments made by another poster. I am not Grim. What part of that do you not understand? If your beef is with my initial argument, then Grim's comment is irrelevant.

What a waste of my time doing this.
Click to expand...

I'm going to type really slowly so you don't get lost:

1. Nobody claimed you made any reference to fighting spirit.
2. I referred to a faux sense of honoring (first mentioned by Grim) which the name Redskin has NEVER been used for. I did this in order to discredit the sequence of arguments that are related to whether a slur stops being racist if the race is using it.
3. You apparently took this to mean that I said that you said something about the NA fighting spirit.
4. I showed you that you don't really comprehend larger arguments so you go chasing little side arguments (by being offended because the conversation is being debated within a much larger context) because your main arguments don't hold much weight.
 
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...

why? It should not matter what your race is. Calling someone a demeaning name should not matter what race they are.

IMO, this issue regarding the NFL Washington Redskins is just another political correctness ploy.

To solve the issue, I think we should demand the name be changed to the Washington Oklahoma. , oh wait, that won't work. Oklahoma means "red skin" in Choctaw:mrgreen:

Seems the patent office should have rejected the team name back in 1967.
 
Hatuey said:
If you stopped focusing on the little bits of posts you want to pick a personal fight with, you'd have realized that about 10 pages ago. I'm sure I've stated this in various forms:

<snip>.
Click to expand...

So your entire point of wanting my attention was to say that you think "Redskins" is a slur and it bothers you that I don't, and it's irrelevant that Native Americans use it to describe themselves.

Good. Easy. You won a symbolic battle for slurs then with this ruling. Be happy now.
 
tres borrachos said:
So your entire point of wanting my attention was to say that you think "Redskins" is a slur and it bothers you that I don't,
Click to expand...

facepalm1.jpg


No, the 10 posts have shown why using a race's usage of a slur is a terrible measure of a slur's sociocultural implications. That you haven't grasped that after the 3-4 different ways I've explained it is indicative that you really do have reading comprehension issues.
 
Hatuey said:
facepalm1.jpg


No, the 10 posts have shown why using a race's usage of a slur is a terrible measure of a slur's sociocultural implications. That you haven't grasped that after the 3-4 different ways I've explained it is indicative that you really do have reading comprehension issues.
Click to expand...

Um, no, it's that you have your opinion on what's racist and I have mine. Don't you love America? We are actually allowed to have our own thoughts. Neat country, this.
 
tres borrachos said:
Um, no, it's that you have your opinion on what's racist and I have mine.
Click to expand...

When my opinion is based on academic research, historiographical articles on the slurs and examples across a myriad of similar cases, it's a little more than "an opinion". On the other hand, - "your opinion" is hardly more than an attempt at being relevant and isn't really based on much of anything. It has also failed on a number of grounds. The first is that there are so many historically inconsistent holes in it, it's like shooting fish in a bucket. The second is that it simply isn't based on any kind of historic example that could support it. However, I am a benevolent person and welcome you back when you've studied more on this issue. Toodles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom