Page 2 of 12

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 9:07 am
by riggofan
langleyparkjoe wrote:
riggofan wrote:lol. WOW.


wut a jerk, you couldn't let it slide like the rest of us huh?

ROTFALMAO


hah. NO! That was freaking HILARIOUS!!!

Sorry for being the jerk though. :)

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 9:34 am
by skinsfan#33
If the Redskins have changed their name then the Vikings, Raiders, and Buccaneers (sp?) should have to change their names since I think it is offensive to name you team after and glorify a groups that made their living by raping, robbing, and murdering people.

I contend that no matter what the name used to mean, Redskins no longer is a derogatory term. It represents Washington profootball and nothing else.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 9:39 am
by DarthMonk
Deadskins wrote:
Redskins Reparations wrote:When was the last time a professional sports franchise changed their name due to public pressure and/or political correctness?

Bullets to Wizards?


Here's some irony - the logo looks like a guy who just shot himself in the head!

Image

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 9:44 am
by Cappster
I personally don't really care what the team is called. I still love my Redskins, but if the name does change, I will still root for them, because they are my team. I agree with SF33's sentiment that meanings do change over time, but I also agree with CLL's assessment that the offenders don't need to tell the offended how to feel.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:00 am
by skinsfan#33
DarthMonk wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Redskins Reparations wrote:When was the last time a professional sports franchise changed their name due to public pressure and/or political correctness?

Bullets to Wizards?


Here's some irony - the logo looks like a guy who just shot himself in the head!

Image


I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that are offended by the name Wizzards due to witchcraft (in their minds) being associated with the devil. Or how about Wiccans who actually practice witchcraft (in their minds) that find the term wizzard offensive.

My point is, you can find a group that can find almost any name offensive.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:26 am
by emoses14
I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.


I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.

I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.

Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 10:45 am
by PAPDOG67
HTTRRG3ALMO wrote:
yupchagee wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Redskins Reparations wrote:When was the last time a professional sports franchise changed their name due to public pressure and/or political correctness?

Bullets to Wizards?


That wasn't public pressure. The owner did that after the Rabin asasination.


Wow didn't know that. Thought it was a political move.

BTW you guys ever hear of a bakery company called "Bimbo Bakeries"? They're actually a very large company across the nation (not sure if they're international).

I'd think that if we're going after company names, there's a lot worse out there than what we're dealing with.


Yes, its actually Grupo Bimbo, its a Mexican based company. I work in the market, and we laugh every time we see it pop up on a trade ticket. BTW, the ticker on it is GRBMF if you're interested.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 11:42 am
by aswas71788
emoses14 wrote:I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.


I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.

I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.

Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.


You can't really use the N word as a comparison. Are you aware that some blacks call each other the N name and consider it a term of endearment? I only found that out recently, surprised the heck out of me. I have been called many names over the years; redskin, injun, indian, Tonto (I knew Jay Silverheels, he was quite a guy. He was a Mohawk from Canada. I consider it a compliment.), Squawman, chief, scalper, redass, among a few others. My feeling is that whether they are an insult or not depends on the reason for being called the name, not the name. My best friend calls me chief but I have been called that in a manner by others that was meant as an insult. This is never going to go away as long as the media is willing to make a deal out of it.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:04 pm
by emoses14
aswas71788 wrote:
emoses14 wrote:I empathize with the group of people that feel the name is derogatory. I truly do. I don't think they are fighting the TM protection solely for publicity sake (though publicity helps their cause attract attention and support). I believe and understand their being offended.


I also believe that they are wrong in this fight. SF33, framed it. It isn't just about origin of use, its about the evolution of it and perception over time.

I do believe, sorry, I KNOW, that there are numerous SIGNIFICANT differences between Redskin and the N-Word. The most pertinent for the argument against the anti-Redskin crowd is that though Redskin may be offensive, period, its usage and meaning to everyone other than them is w.r.t the football team in DC. ONLY. So for me the 2 camps of opinion are not the offenders and the offended, but rather the offended and everyone else who uses it in one context only. Sf33 is right on about usage changing. The N-Word has not ever been used for anything other than racist, violent, supremacist, subjugating ends. Not so with Redskin. Hell you can't type the full N-word without touching off a major firestorm, as it should be.

Without looking it up, my bet is the last time anyone can truthfully point to Redskin being used derogatorily was well over 50 years ago. That can't be just brushed aside, nor can the offense this group takes. Some middle ground between "piss off" and "change the name" (that does not involve changing the name) needs to be reached. If I had my druthers, I'd look to Snyder to invite the groups leaders out to his palatial estate to discuss alternatives to their desired end game that works for the offended and everyone else.


You can't really use the N word as a comparison. Are you aware that some blacks call each other the N name and consider it a term of endearment? I only found that out recently, surprised the heck out of me. I have been called many names over the years; redskin, injun, indian, Tonto (I knew Jay Silverheels, he was quite a guy. He was a Mohawk from Canada. I consider it a compliment.), Squawman, chief, scalper, redass, among a few others. My feeling is that whether they are an insult or not depends on the reason for being called the name, not the name. My best friend calls me chief but I have been called that in a manner by others that was meant as an insult. This is never going to go away as long as the media is willing to make a deal out of it.


Yes, very well aware. I agree the N word can't be used as a comparison, and I thought that was what I was saying.

I agree with your point on usage, which is why at the end of the day, I don't think Washington Redskins meets the test for offensive. That was my point with N word comment in response to the woman leading this fight who has likened redskin and the N word. I don't care if EVERY black person used it as a term of endearment, it still wouldn't work if they were the Washington N_ _ _ _ _ _.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:12 pm
by riggofan
skinsfan#33 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that are offended by the name Wizzards due to witchcraft (in their minds) being associated with the devil. Or how about Wiccans who actually practice witchcraft (in their minds) that find the term wizzard offensive.

My point is, you can find a group that can find almost any name offensive.


Ok, that is a point.

But if I apply your logic, then it would be completely okay if the team renamed itself the Washington Wetbacks, right? Because, hey, no matter what you name a team itself some group is going to find almost any name offensive.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:26 pm
by grampi
This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.[/quote]

So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed? There are way too many people today who gripe and complain about everything, and it's impossible to make EVERYONE happy...this entire issue could be put to rest permanently if Snyder would call a press conference and publically announce that the team name is not going to be changed no matter what....sorry if I seem to be insensitive, but I'm beyond sick and tired of small, fringe groups always demanding that the vast majorities make concessions just to please their every whim...

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:29 pm
by cowboykillerzRGiii
I thought the slur was indian instead of native American.. not Redskins. As stated it actually pays homage to the warriors who dawned the red battle paint.

I find the pukes offensive... So I root against them and don't buy their products.

It's been beaten to death, and I for one would hate a name change.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 1:53 pm
by Irn-Bru
The public opinion poll surprises me; I would have assume many more people would be in favor of forcing a name change because that's the kind of thing that often gets public support (even if nothing is done about it).

I remember in college this topic always came up with those English 101 papers. Lots of 18 year olds getting worked up about it and comparing "Redskins" to various slurs.

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah. No, don't change it. The people who keep working up a fury on this topic need a hug.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 2:42 pm
by markshark84
The name should stay; plain and simple. This entire "debate" is being blown out of proportion.

The sensitivity of this country has become nausiating.

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 3:44 pm
by riggofan
grampi wrote:
This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.


So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?



Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.

What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. It does. You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its still factually an ethnic slur.

Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?

Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 4:17 pm
by jmooney
Deadskins wrote:
jmooney wrote:While were at it, theives everywhere should request Pittsburgh's name to be changed

Um, it's Steelers, not Stealers. :oops: And thieves, not theives.


I knew that, it was meant as a joke. as far as mispelling thieves, it was before 5 am and I was on my first cup of coffee. The point remains the same.

Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 7:15 am
by grampi
riggofan wrote:What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. It does. You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its still factually an ethnic slur.


It may be an ethnic slur, but I don't believe it's a derogatory one, and I think that's the crux of the matter. No team owner would name their team after a derogatory slur...not even in 1932...calling a Caucasian "white" is also an ethnic slur, but it's also not derogatory...

Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 1:48 pm
by skinsfan#33
riggofan wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that are offended by the name Wizzards due to witchcraft (in their minds) being associated with the devil. Or how about Wiccans who actually practice witchcraft (in their minds) that find the term wizzard offensive.

My point is, you can find a group that can find almost any name offensive.


Ok, that is a point.

But if I apply your logic, then it would be completely okay if the team renamed itself the Washington Wetbacks, right? Because, hey, no matter what you name a team itself some group is going to find almost any name offensive.


Yes, I do if that team had named the Wetbacks for 80 years and the name was no longer associated with Mexicans.

That is where we are at with the Redskins.

By the way, no one would care if Christians were offended with the name of a team, because in most people's minds Christians are associated with the majority not minorities. And I know that is rational incredibly dumb and not based on facts at all, but it still doesn't change the fact that if a Christian group was offended by something they would gain no sympathy what so ever.

Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 2:01 pm
by skinsfan#33
riggofan wrote:
grampi wrote:
This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.


So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?



Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.

What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. but they are package in a shed that no one has been in for 50 years You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its no longer used as an ethnic slur.

Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?


Here I change it for you to make your statement more accurate to this century.

Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 3:41 pm
by riggofan
skinsfan#33 wrote:
riggofan wrote:
grampi wrote:
This is EXACTLY what irritates about this stupid debate. That people on the pro-Redskins side play stupid about and refuse to acknowledge that the word "Redskins" is a slur and offensive to some people.


So is this the way things work in today's society...if even one person is offended by something it must be changed?



Of course not, and I didn't say that at all. I said I don't think the name should be changed.

What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. but they are package in a shed that no one has been in for 50 years You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its no longer used as an ethnic slur.

Again, I'd like to see Skins fans and all the rest just go ahead and own it. We don't agree that the name is that big a deal. Sorry if it bothers anybody, but we're not changing it. That's pretty much the Redskins' response isn't it?


Here I change it for you to make your statement more accurate to this century.


That's fine. I don't disagree with you on that at all. "Redskin" is admittedly an old ethnic slur that nobody has used in a hundred years. Sorry if it bothers anyone, but we don't think its a big enough deal to change it.

Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 7:34 pm
by Kilmer72
grampi wrote:
riggofan wrote:What I wrote is that I wish Redskins fans would quit pretending like the name Redskins doesn't have some baggage to it. It does. You can get all grumpy old man about it all you want and whine about political correctness and all the rest. Its still factually an ethnic slur.


It may be an ethnic slur, but I don't believe it's a derogatory one, and I think that's the crux of the matter. No team owner would name their team after a derogatory slur...not even in 1932...calling a Caucasian "white" is also an ethnic slur, but it's also not derogatory...



=D> Well said.

Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 7:38 pm
by yupchagee
The only safe names are Hoyas, Hokies & Hoosiers. Nobody knows what any of them are.

Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 7:48 pm
by emoses14
yupchagee wrote:The only safe names are Hoyas, Hokies & Hoosiers. Nobody knows what any of them are.


I'm down for Hoya! Makes it easier for me to cheer for my DC teams.

Hoya saxa!

Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 6:38 pm
by emoses14
Dan Snyder wrote: We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps.


Well, that's that.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/92598 ... -team-name

Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 7:02 pm
by gay4pacman
Never might be reaching but we can be sure redskins will be around for a while.