1. Not a single thing addressed any part of my post, just threw up a strawman instead.
2. I reject the premise from the very onset that Nigger and Redskin are equivalents, and thus the question is a worthless one.
1. Just a phenomenally ****ty response on your part. You don't seem to understand what a strawman is, or perhaps you didn't realize that your response was one.
Here, let me spell this out for you since this is clearly necessary due to your emotional investment on this issue:
Based on FAR more substantive, verifiable, and scientifically collected data than most of those arguing from the other side.
First, this was, itself, a strawman. Good job. But that's not my point.
This is why people like you desperately attempt to minimize and dismiss repeated attempts at legitimate scientifically conducted polling across a decade by two different entities, neither with any incentive or reason to be biased (hell, with one having clear incentive to be biased AGAINST the Redskins name), with nitpicks rather than actually providing anything of substance back or of similar quality back.
Now, answer me a simple question. Let's say we had a perfect poll of all black people and we asked them how many found the word 'nigger' offensive. At what fraction do those people transition from, say, "genuinely offended" to "nitpicks"?
And don't whine equivocation again, that was pathetic the first time. I'm not equivocating, i'm using an analogy. An analogy is where you compare two
DIFFERENT things in an attempt to get a point off to the recipient. In this case, the point i'm making is that disparaging a smaller minority with a pejorative term does not magically become acceptable.
But lets go back to the rest of your post, because, to your credit, you at least try to touch on this point:
3. "Acceptable", in the scope of this ruling, shouldn't matter if it was 10 out of 10 as it relates to free speech. "Acceptable" in terms of socially acceptable? There's no use in actually trying to "explain" it to you, because you're in no way interested in any kind of honest discussion of it.
Sneaking in an ad hom, bad sign. Your defensive reaction demonstrates that you are aware of the weakness of your position.
But to put it simply, when that small of a population is offended by something, and their claimed offense is based on the notion of it being offensive to their race, the reality is that the offense is a personal one rather than some true transgression upon a race of people.
No true scotsman.
You even used the word "true". Freudian slip?
And while, ultimately, I am not in favor of actively attempting to offend people simply for the purpose of being offensive, I do not believe in any way that the name's purpose is such a thing.
Ah, speculation: it actually makes no difference, it is clearly indifferent to the possibility of being offensive.
You're just okay with it as long as the minority is small and powerless enough. Honestly? That makes me sick.
Furthermore, the reality is that at this point any action in any direction is going to anger and offend various groups and entities on a personal level, and I do not necessarily hold any particular ones offense as inherently greater or of such higher concern that one course of action is the only "acceptable" one. The only person who is ultimately responsible for being offended is the person who is being offended; it is ultimately impossible to control whether an individual is offended. That is entirely an individuals feeling or reaction to something, and as such basing one's decisions singularly on the notion of whether people are "offended", is an illogical one. As one part of an overriding decision? Sure. But acceptability is not founded on the idea that "X" person/people find something offensive and thus "not acceptable".
And then victim blaming.
I'll agree that some people are offended by things that many others consider inoffensive. Their reflex doesn't determine whether something is offensive. At the end of the day, all we have are our own opinions.
Oh, well, and the history of oppression combined with the active celebration of a stereotype.
