Washington who?

[-X-]

Maybe, maybe not. I'm going to hope for the best.

That's the best thing all of us can do, brotherman.
Live our lives unobtrusively, model our behavior after real role models, and try to be excellent to each other.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think you're missing my point. I said its not about politics. Because that's flawed no matter what. If we keep going down this path it's just going to get worse. Soon you'll see people getting arrested because Johnny called Sally a poopyhead. I shouldn't have to be so careful when I have a conversation with someone so I don't offend them. I'm tired of tiptoeing around with words. It's unfair. It doesn't mean I'm going to be an icehole, but if I accidentally say "awe man that's gay", I'm gunna be freakin crucified for it. Even though whatever I was talking about was stupid or doesn't make sense. Not homosexual.

I think that's a bit of a slippery slope to be honest. Just because it isn't socially acceptable to say certain things like racist terms, or different things doesn't mean that suddenly people are going to be hauled off to jail for getting in arguments and throwing insults back and forth. The only way I can see someone being arrested is if they get to the point where the other person takes their own life because of it, and at that point it's more about harassment. In terms of being crucified for saying things, typically people can understand context and tone, so if you say "That's kinda gay" it's unlikely you'll suddenly be under fire for it, at least by the rational majority.

I just don't see how pointing out that the Redskins is a somewhat racist name is suddenly going to make America into a bunch of pussies. It's a kneejerk reaction that people have every time there's change going on. There's always people who push change, and always people who resist it. Not changing isn't going to make America collapse because we can't keep up, and changing it wont make America into pussies. At one point it was thought that giving minorities rights and letting them fight in our military would make our nation soft, then it was gays, and neither of those happened. Changing Washington's football team name, and not thinking it's acceptable to go around say certain things wont do it either.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Again, maybe I should have worded it differently. I'm not saying everyone should be punching each other in the face. I was trying to use it as a metaphor to compare today's society. People used to go to work, do whatever they gotta do and go home. Now everything has rules and guidelines on how to speak, how to look, how to act. Everything is micromanaged and it's just going to get worse unless we stop worrying about silly words that offend 15 people in the world.

All those social norms existed in the past as well, it was a different style, different way of talking, but there were still social norms and if you didn't do what was socially acceptable it would offend people.

People still work and people still do whatever they gotta do and go home, it's no different. We just have different social norms today than we did in the 40's and 50's.

 

[WestCoastRam]

This is what makes our country great. The tension. Our country was founded with different branches in tension with each other so that no one branch of government became too powerful. Such tension extends into your culture too. Too much PC influence can quash debate (notice the issue of "triggering speech" on college campus shutting down discussions). However, unfettered speech promotes privilege and can be dangerous (We are not allowed to yell "fire" willy nilly in a theater).

I'm pretty okay with the Redskin name going away. I'd probably feel different if it were my team - I acknowledge. I do think that the process of how this name might change is pretty much the way it should be. It is a process. It'll probably happen. And we don't live in a country where someone can force Snyder by gun-point to change the name.

 

[Mojo Ram]

which is worse? The people that are offended by "everything" or the people that spend their time complaining about what other people are offended by?

The former.

 

[den-the-coach]

Here is what I've come away with in reference to the Confederate Flag in the Great State of South Carolina....Governor Nikki Haley is easy on the eyes and is now my favorite Governor, so what does that say for me?

 

[Legatron4]

@jrry32 @bluecoconuts i didn't feel like quoting the essays you guys wrote so I'll respond to both of you in this. It will be my last post on the matter(not because I'm upset, I just think we've come full circle with this).

Although this might be a little over dramatic I've come up with scenarios that have changed in the last 60 years. Admittedly most of them are silly, but they get the point across.

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1955: Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2015: School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1955: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2015: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3: Jeffrey won’t sit still in class, disrupts other students.

1955: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2015: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Again, these might be a little over the top, but this is what I'm talking about. Change begins change, begins change. It's only going to get worse.

 

[RamzFanz]

I don't like the name because of it's negative connotations and think they should change it.

I don't like the confederate flag because of it's negative connotations and think states should remove it.

But those are societal issues and that's where it should be decided, NOT by the feds or courts. The feds are not constitutionally granted the authority to be the thought or speech police and should stop trying to be.

RamzFanz' insensitive societal comment follows:

 

[RamzFanz]

Here is what I've come away with in reference to the Confederate Flag in the Great State of South Carolina....Governor Nikki Haley is easy on the eyes and is now my favorite Governor, so what does that say for me?

You like MILFs?

 

[Corbin]

I'm not sure there should be a divide. We're not talking about the word "saints" here. This is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. "Saint" is a positive term. So it's really not comparable here. It's not like you insult a Jewish person by calling them a saint.

What redskin used to mean isn't what it means now. When even the dictionary has "offensive" and "disparaging" written in with the word, you can't really argue that it's not.

Black people use the n-word now. Doesn't mean someone should name a team that.

So Native Americans using redskin in the past just doesn't defeat the fact that the word's context has evolved.(in a negative way)

And the argument always pops up, "if this offends you, why aren't you demanding this separate thing be changed or this other thing..." and that's just a red herring. You're digressing from the actual point. If your best argument is, "well, yes, it's bad but there are plenty of other bad things in the world" then I hope you're willing to reconsider whether you should be defending the thing you are.

There are a lot of injustices and bad things in this world. We aren't going to change them all. But that doesn't mean we should give up on changing anything.

I'm not a Native American so, ultimately, this won't affect my life one way or the other. But I understand where they're coming from and I don't think their viewpoint should be dismissed as just being "sensitive" or "whiny" or "PC."


.

This is why I like conversations about subjects like this is it gives me an opportunity to see others points of view etc.

The main point I think is a very small portion of the Native American people feel this is a racial slur and openly offended by it. If we listen to any small minority causing a stir in the news people like his would win out the day.



On the other side I doubt to many African Americans back in the day opposed or were indifferent about the Civil Rights movement.

edit:
BTW I found a really good article that has changed my mind about a lot of my viewpoints based on history and fact.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...y-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/

I'm thinking it's not such a bad thing the teams name be changed now.

 

[RamzFanz]

@jrry32 @bluecoconuts i didn't feel like quoting the essays you guys wrote so I'll respond to both of you in this. It will be my last post on the matter(not because I'm upset, I just think we've come full circle with this).

Although this might be a little over dramatic I've come up with scenarios that have changed in the last 60 years. Admittedly most of them are silly, but they get the point across.

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1955: Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2015: School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1955: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2015: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3: Jeffrey won’t sit still in class, disrupts other students.

1955: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2015: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Again, these might be a little over the top, but this is what I'm talking about. Change begins change, begins change. It's only going to get worse.

And in the 1950's my Grandfather used the N word generously and with contempt, I'm told, as did many. Later in life, when I knew him, as he matured and had relationships with blacks, he did not and would not tolerate it in his southern brethren either.

"As Terry Bradshaw puts it, “Finally I’ve given it some thought, and if it’s really offending people … Everybody loves the Washington Redskins but they can be the Washington something else.” This was never about PC, just manners."

I couldn't say it better than the author of the opinion posted by @Corbin, it's just bad manners regardless of the intentions of the user of the word.

And that concludes my preaching of the day.

 

[Dodgersrf]

The former.

Exactly.
Those types of people, expect the world to conform to their ideals of thinking. It may seem like something as simple as a flag or Nickname, but this way of movement can be dangerous.
Telling people how to think and what they should believe, is an extremely dangerous direction for this country to go.
Diversity may not be agreeable to all people, but it it certainly our prerogative. Even if it may be offensive to some.
I'm not banging the drum here for the Confederate flag or the Redskins nickname. I personally, couldn't care less about either. I just think that people freedoms of speech and beliefs are being dictated here.

Now if both of these were, without question, a symbol of tyranny or racism, then sure. Lose them.

 

[RamzFanz]

I just think that people freedoms of speech and beliefs are being dictated here.

Exactly. The courts and feds have no place interfering in public decorum when civil right violations aren't involved. Let societal forces decide as the constitution intended. In the end, we tend to get it right.

 

[nanotech]

The court ruling just took away their trademark protections. It doesn't mean they have to change it - but if they want to sell merchandise that no one else can sell, then they probably should.

But it's getting appealed ...

Somehow, the folks in this thread do not seem to understand that. Taking away the trademark is far different from the court ruling the name "Redskins" should be banned from the US lexicon because of discriminatory or epithetic inference.

Forget it, my Mom is calling me.

 

[Ramhusker]

@jrry32 @bluecoconuts i didn't feel like quoting the essays you guys wrote so I'll respond to both of you in this. It will be my last post on the matter(not because I'm upset, I just think we've come full circle with this).

Although this might be a little over dramatic I've come up with scenarios that have changed in the last 60 years. Admittedly most of them are silly, but they get the point across.

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1955: Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2015: School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1955: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2015: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3: Jeffrey won’t sit still in class, disrupts other students.

1955: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2015: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Again, these might be a little over the top, but this is what I'm talking about. Change begins change, begins change. It's only going to get worse.

You left out the part where Jeffrey goes out 3 years later and shoots a dozen people.

 

[den-the-coach]

You like MILFs?

At 48 years of age, they're all MILF!

 

[jrry32]

@jrry32 @bluecoconuts i didn't feel like quoting the essays you guys wrote so I'll respond to both of you in this. It will be my last post on the matter(not because I'm upset, I just think we've come full circle with this).

Although this might be a little over dramatic I've come up with scenarios that have changed in the last 60 years. Admittedly most of them are silly, but they get the point across.

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1955: Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2015: School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1955: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2015: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3: Jeffrey won’t sit still in class, disrupts other students.

1955: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2015: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Again, these might be a little over the top, but this is what I'm talking about. Change begins change, begins change. It's only going to get worse.

Legatron, you're ignoring context on the gun scenario. Guns aren't allowed on school grounds anymore because of school shootings (like Columbine). People still love their guns and still have plenty of them. Especially in the South. Frankly, I think it's the right move to keep guns out of schools. My high school principal was actually killed in a school shooting so I'm all for finding ways to keeping guns off of school grounds.

I don't agree on the fight. There are still plenty of fights today in schools and I highly doubt they call in the SWAT team. A couple of my friends got in a fistfight in school and they didn't get punished. They ended up getting up, shaking hands, and being just fine.

I do agree that people are too quick to medicate in the present. Although, I don't think corporal punishment is a better alternative to that.

I don't like the name because of it's negative connotations and think they should change it.

I don't like the confederate flag because of it's negative connotations and think states should remove it.

But those are societal issues and that's where it should be decided, NOT by the feds or courts. The feds are not constitutionally granted the authority to be the thought or speech police and should stop trying to be.

RamzFanz' insensitive societal comment follows:

Well, this is partially true and partially not. The state of South Carolina made the decision on the Confederate flag. Which seems to be exactly what you're asking for.

In the Redskins case, it is in federal court because it is dealing with federal trademark law. The court did not rule that the Redskins need to change their name. They only ruled that they could not be protected under federal trademark law. So in that case, it is a federal issue.

 

[Prime Time]

I'm white, real white, almost off-white so I don't presume to tell people of other races how they should think or feel. If something I say to them offends them, then I will apologize and try to remember to correct myself in the future. That doesn't make me weak or a coward, quite the opposite. What the Washington team calls themselves makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. But after reading the responses by our Rams buddy @Mackeyser and others, I'm all for a change.

That being said:

Free speech is specifically meant to protect the most vile types of speech. We are losing that. Those who are celebrating victory after victory by the pc police might not be so happy when their turn comes, whatever that may be. It is all about control and it never ends with those types. They want to tell you how to think, how to speak, and how to live.

And btw racism, unfortunately, will always be a part of the human experience. Unless one wants to live in a Clockwork Orange type of society, which I for one don't. My father raised me to be accepting of all races and for that I'm grateful but not everyone was raised that way. Lessening bigotry and racism begins in the home with how mom and dad not only talk the talk but walk the walk, not by government or the Supreme Court. Laws only change the outside of a human being, not the heart.

 

[RamzFanz]

Well, this is partially true and partially not. The state of South Carolina made the decision on the Confederate flag. Which seems to be exactly what you're asking for.

In the Redskins case, it is in federal court because it is dealing with federal trademark law. The court did not rule that the Redskins need to change their name. They only ruled that they could not be protected under federal trademark law. So in that case, it is a federal issue.

Yes. The actions by South Carolina is exactly what is legal and proper. The state decided to remove the flag on their own just as it should be. That was my example of a proper change in attitudes by citizens and a state.

The Feds have no right deciding what can or can't be trademarked based upon their interpretation of the meaning. They do not have constitutional authority over speech and should stay out. Let anyone trademark anything that is their creation and let society decide if they will accept it.

 

[jrry32]

Yes. The actions by South Carolina is exactly what is legal and proper. The state decided to remove the flag on their own just as it should be. That was my example of a proper change in attitudes by citizens and a state.

The Feds have no right deciding what can or can't be trademarked based upon their interpretation of the meaning. They do not have constitutional authority over speech and should stay out. Let anyone trademark anything that is their creation and let society decide if they will accept it.

The feds have every right to decide what can and can't be trademarked because they created the protection. Trademarks are not protected in the Constitution. They're protected by federal statute. They absolutely have Constitutional authority to determine what can and can't be trademarked...because if they didn't, NOTHING could be trademarked.(since they wouldn't have Constitutional authority to enact the statute)

So yes, they do have Constitutional authority to determine whether certain "speech" receives federal trademark protection.