2014 REDSKINS - Part II - The Rise of Capt. Kirk (1-3-0)

[BobRouse]

Sad but true. And that's hardly contained to just the FCC, too.


Yeah, how dare we attempt to have an inclusive society that's tolerant of minority groups!

I bet Athiests wouldn't care too much about the Saints name. Should we not listen to them? Are they a group that doesn't matter?

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

I bet Athiests wouldn't care too much about the Saints name. Should we not listen to them? Are they a group that doesn't matter?

This post shows no understanding of either why Redskins is an offensive name, or about Atheism.

 

[BobRouse]

This post shows no understanding of either why Redskins is an offensive name, or about Atheism.

Would Scandanavians be offended by the name Vikings? I wonder if a poll showed that 10% were would be good enough?

Or do Myst and QD know what is offensive and what is not offensive to other people?

 

[Ajax1995]

Yeah, how dare we attempt to have an inclusive society that's tolerant of minority groups!

You act like this is such a cut and dry issue. If the Washington Redskins were the only team out there using this nickname I could easily get on board. But when there are plenty of predominately Native American high schools also using it that makes it difficult for me to believe that the supposed racism behind the name is so obvious.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

Would Scandanavians be offended by the name Vikings? I wonder if a poll showed that 10% were would be good enough?

Or do Myst and QD know what is offensive and what is not offensive to other people?

So because there are grey areas, you're against removing even obvious racial slurs from the NFL?

 

[Hivemind]

Lists of native american organizations against the term:
http://www.changethemascot.org/supporters-of-change/
http://nativeappropriations.com/2014/06/who-has-spoken-out-against-the-redskns.html

Poll indicating 67% of Native Americans think the term is racial or racist:
http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

When we hear this type of public outcry from atheists and scandinavians (of which I am both), we can talk about the Saints and Vikings. Until then your hypotheticals are merely hypotheticals, and that whole train of thought is a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[BobRouse]

Lists of native american organizations against the term:
http://www.changethemascot.org/supporters-of-change/
http://nativeappropriations.com/2014/06/who-has-spoken-out-against-the-redskns.html

Poll indicating 67% of Native Americans think the term is racial or racist:
http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

When we hear this type of public outcry from atheists and scandinavians (of which I am both), we can talk about the Saints and Vikings. Until then your hypotheticals are merely hypotheticals, and that whole train of thought is a slippery slope fallacy.

I don't believe the slippery slope to be a fallacy. IF this goes through which it most likely WILL then other groups will surface to get notoriety and there will be pockets of outcry like this one. You open a can of worms with small decisions like this if they are made without looking at future impact based on the precedent set.

So because there are grey areas, you're against removing even obvious racial slurs from the NFL?

OK what if the Redskins changed their name. I imagine their logo would have to change too right?

I mean what if there was a team called the "African Americans" with a logo of a proud man of color on the helmet? That wouldn't be acceptable would it? I bet plenty would be offended if they changed that name but not the logo.

Then teams like the Indians and Blackhawks would have to change their logos as well I'd imagine.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

So because there are grey areas, you're against removing even obvious racial slurs from the NFL?

OK what if the Redskins changed their name. I imagine their logo would have to change too right?

I mean what if there was a team called the "African Americans" with a logo of a proud man of color on the helmet? That wouldn't be acceptable would it? I bet plenty would be offended if they changed that name but not the logo.

Then teams like the Indians and Blackhawks would have to change their logos as well I'd imagine.

You didn't even attempt to answer the question.

 

[BobRouse]

You didn't even attempt to answer the question.

What makes it so "obvious" to you tho? Whats obvious to some people isn't obvious to others.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

What makes it so "obvious" to you tho? Whats obvious to some people isn't obvious to others.

So your position is that you don't think "redskin" is a racial slur?

 

[Hivemind]

I don't believe the slippery slope to be a fallacy. IF this goes through which it most likely WILL then other groups will surface to get notoriety and there will be pockets of outcry like this one. You open a can of worms with small decisions like this if they are made without looking at future impact based on the precedent set.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

"The slippery slope (also known as the domino effect or a gateway) is a common logical fallacy (and a variant on the argument from adverse consequences) that asks for a prohibition or curtailment on something based on a cascading series of undesired results, e.g. former Senator Rick Santorum's belief that the US Supreme Court's decision on Lawrence v. Texas would eventually lead to the legalization of "man-on-dog" sex,[1] among other forms of sexual activity generally considered repulsive or obscene.[2] It is also a common argument amongst opponents of drug or alcohol use, based on the idea that simply getting drunk or high once (or even just experiencing a little of the substance in question) inevitably leads to a raging addiction and a failed life."

 

[g00n]

Equating "redskin" and "viking" or "raider" while making a slippery slope argument is utterly ridiculous. You really can't tell the difference between a racial slur against an oppressed and marginalized people vs. a cultural warrior name from a marauding horde that has never been a racial slur?

Are you serious?

It's amazing that you don't understand why "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy and therefore bad.

 

[BobRouse]

So your position is that you don't think "redskin" is a racial slur?

How many native americans think its a slur? Thats more important wouldn't you say?

Based on most polls and reports it seems only a small minority of native americans think it is.

And lets say we go by the principle of "hey even if just a handful of people are offended then we should consider it a slur!"

Then what kind of precedent does that set? Remember our laws and legal system are built on precedent.

Its a fertile ground that will invite many more small groups who wish to make a name for themselves and they will find demons where none exist.

Equating "redskin" and "viking" or "raider" while making a slippery slope argument is utterly ridiculous. You really can't tell the difference between a racial slur against an oppressed and marginalized people vs. a cultural warrior name from a marauding horde that has never been a racial slur?

Apparently alot of native americans can't either...but Goon and co. CAN. It seems YOU know better than the very people who it should offend that the majority of whom are not offended.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

So your position is that you don't think "redskin" is a racial slur?

How many native americans think its a slur? Thats more important wouldn't you say?

Based on most polls and reports it seems only a small minority of native americans think it is.

And lets say we go by the principle of "hey even if just a handful of people are offended then we should consider it a slur!"

Then what kind of precedent does that set? Remember our laws and legal system are built on precedent.

Its a fertile ground that will invite many more small groups who wish to make a name for themselves and they will find demons where none exist.

Once again, you made no attempt to answer the question.

 

[BobRouse]

Once again, you made no attempt to answer the question.

No I don't find it offensive. But I understand that some people may.

What I do know based on the studies is that MOST native americans do NOT find it offensive.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

No I don't find it offensive. But I understand that some people may.

What I do know based on the studies is that MOST native americans do NOT find it offensive.

The question wasn't whether you find the word offensive. It was whether you think it is a racial slur.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

Yeah, wouldn't it be horrible if we paid attention to the rights and needs of even the smallest of minorities.

America certainly wasn't founded on principles like that.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/fo...he-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/

 

[BobRouse]

The question wasn't whether you find the word offensive. It was whether you think it is a racial slur.

Doesn't it have to be offensive if its a racial slur? Can there exist a racial slur that is not offensive??

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

Doesn't it have to be offensive if its a racial slur? Can there exist a racial slur that is not offensive??

There can exist a racial slur that an individual doesn't find offensive, yes.

You still haven't answered the question.

 

[BobRouse]

There can exist a racial slur that an individual doesn't find offensive, yes.

You still haven't answered the question.

Can their exist a racial slur that the MAJORITY of the given race doesn't find offensive?

I need to know your definition before answering the question.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

Can their exist a racial slur that the MAJORITY of the given race doesn't find offensive?

I need to know your definition before answering the question.

Would you call a Native American a redskin to their face?

 

[g00n]

Can their exist a racial slur that the MAJORITY of the given race doesn't find offensive?

I need to know your definition before answering the question.

It's a yes or no question. Why won't you answer it? There is nothing in the definition of racial slur that requires a statistical majority of somehow vetted people to be offended by it for it to be a slur.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

What I do know based on the studies is that MOST native americans do NOT find it offensive.

Why aren't you referring to them as redskins here?

 

[BobRouse]

In a poll conducted and paid for by an organization named after that racial slur?

Where are the polls conducted that shows that a majority of native americans find it offensive?? Check it:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.

The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins.

Redskins Fan Cried Over Trademark Ruling

[B]“We just don’t think that (name) is an issue,†Yazzie said. “There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.â€

“Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,†Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.â€[/B]


So I guess an entire school made of native americans, who uses the same name/mascot, doesn't find it offensive. But certain posters here who are NOT native american do find it offensive.

You guys clearly know best though and whats good for native americans.

 

[g00n]

Why aren't you referring to them as redskins here?

Ooo! I know the answer to this one. It's because since "redskin" is now most commonly associated with the NFL team then using it for a supposedly harmless and culturally accurate purpose for which it was created would be confusing. The existence of the Redskins means redskins isn't offensive. Ipso facto reducto change-o.