Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SEraider on October 13, 2014, 06:38:48 PM
-
The Washington Redskins are changing their name because of all the negativity, shame, humiliation, dissent, polarity, adversity, defiance, hatred, animosity, contempt, discrimination, division, violence, counter-productivity, ill-spirit, un-Godliness, and hostility associated with their name.
So, from now on they will be known simply as the Redskins.
;)
-
:rofl
-
:aok
-
Funny thign about the "Redskin" name is I dont know of anyone who refers to native americans as redskins even in a derogatory sense anymore. And anyone I do hear use the term "redskins" is in reference to the football team.
But if we are goign ot take offence over team names there are other names we need to remove as well.
"The GIANTS" promotes and mocks obesity
"the Brewers" promotes alcoholism
And what about the atrocities the "49ers" committed during the gold rush against the native American population?
And we also need to get rid of the names "Padres","Saints" and "Angels" because those names most assuredly must be offensive to atheists
The name and insignia of "The Raiders" promotes violent thievery and illegal piracy. As does the name "Pirates" and "Buccaneers"
Surely any true freedom loving American hates "The Reds"
And what about the near extermination of the Buffalo that "Buffalo Bill" took part of? Naturalists must take offense at that name "Buffalo Bills" too.
We all know that Southerners are offended by "The Yankees". Can you imagine the hubbub that there would be a if a professional team named themselves the "Johnny Rebs"?
And what about the "Cowboys" who helped drive the native Americans from their lands? Arent they offended at that too?
Vikings. Im sure some Englanders out these must be concerned about a name that represents the raping and pillaging of their country
"Orlando Magic" Magic has long been associated with witchcraft. Religious types are now offended
"Royals"...Well we dont have royalty in this country. In fact this country was formed to get away from royalty. The true blue american patriotic must hate this name.
PETA must be offended at the "Packer" name
The list of absurdities can go on and on.
Heres the sad part. We now live in a world where peoplethink they have the right to not only not be offended. But feel they have the right to not be offended at anything. And not only that but they feel they have the right to demand that people care if they are offended.
Here is the deal.
You have every right to be offended over anything you like however serious, absurd, or silly it may be. What you do NOT have the right of is to not be offended or to expect the world to care or do anything about it if you are.
Lets face it. There are plenty of things in the world that are truely worth being offended over. Child molestation and/or abuse, starvation, Rape, Murder, theft. Etc
But a word or a name? Gimme a break. What wonderful shape this world must be in that peoples biggest concern is what a team is named or what one person calls another.
It seems to me that if people or groups put half as much emphasis and effort into dealing with the problems that exist within their own group for example in the case of the word "redskins" the rampant drug and alcohol abuse problem that exists, as they do with worrying what names or words other people use. They would be far better off and in the end happier and more prosperous
-
I'm from Washington State, so while I like the Seahawks, I am -- as you can imagine -- quite PC offended by the name choice.
Seahawks are a proud species but have been oppressed by development of human communities near the Washington coast and by the loathsome practice of fishing, which is the theft of their native food. Mankind came in and stole territory from the Seahawk as well. To then have their name and cartoon likeness on the uniforms of the oppressors is just beyond endurance.
I think that all sports teams should be given a symbol that cannot be translated into words, sort of like for the artist formerly known as a symbol.
The Seattle Seahawks should be instead the Seattle (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QL-vXf-Jhe0/UROJ5qwIa5I/AAAAAAAAIZA/YVlaWkqsEeI/s400/clint%2Bwarlick%2Bsummoning%2Bcircle.jpg)'s
-
:rofl
"And we also need to get rid of the names "Padres","Saints" and "Angels" because those names most assuredly must be offensive to atheists"
Oh dear, I never thought of that, yet; but believe me you, they have.
Chiefs, Indians, Braves and any team named Warriors, stand fast with the Redskins or be the next to fall.
The hypocrisy is "they" will do anything to try and convince us these names are impediments to Native Americans; what they will NOT do is a dang thing to fix blight, lack of education and access to proper health care for Native Americans.
-
Don't forget about objectifying and degrading animals by naming sports teams after them. We hunt these innocent animals and eat them, but they would never do the same to us because they love Mother Gaiaia and live in peace and harmony with each other. It's even worse than "the war on women".
Teams shouldn't even be named after cities, because of their histories of oppression, discrimination and general mean-spiritedness.
The teams can't be differentiated by numbers either, because that wouldn't be fair to the numbers that don't get a team.
Things need to be made fair and nice or they should all be drawn and quartered.
-
What about the 'Patriots'?!?!?!
Surely that's offensive to the British?!
Er....wait, disregard... :ahand
-
Keep in mind minority, gender, and gay activist groups make their money by being in the news. No name in the news, no donations. The bigger the story, the more they make.
Redskins implies fighting strength to most. Now if they were named Washington White skins . . . not too threatening sounding.
-
Keep in mind minority, gender, and gay activist groups make their money by being in the news. No name in the news, no donations. The bigger the story, the more they make.
Redskins implies fighting strength to most. Now if they were named Washington White skins . . . not too threatening sounding.
It would be considered racist
-
South Park had a brilliant episode called "go fund yourself" that was a brilliant metaphor to this whole redskins situation. The thing I want to know is, they are all offended, but the redskins are part of American history, if we were to change the team names, they would never be remembered, is this what they want? Instead of little johnny asking his pops what a Redskin is, it will be something else. So by keeping these team names around, we are silently preserving history. I don't understand why the natives would rather be forgotten than honored?
-
Interestingly no one has brought forth 'HOW' that team got that name.
Notice someone made sure 'Pontiac' is soon to die.
Go 'Blackhawks'...
JGroth
-
:rofl :rofl
Seriously though... team mascots aren't usually named for things that suck. They're usually something that is to be revered and/or feared, so the sensitivity to stuff like this is silly imo.
-
This is really interesting, I haven't really run across anyone who thought that the name was acceptable since the issue got brought into the headlines.
Heres the sad part. We now live in a world where peoplethink they have the right to not only not be offended. But feel they have the right to not be offended at anything. And not only that but they feel they have the right to demand that people care if they are offended.
I don't really understand how you can have a 'right' to feel one way or another?
Either way, is it really sad that people feel like they have the right to not be degraded on a large scale/daily basis?
-
This is really interesting, I haven't really run across anyone who thought that the name was acceptable since the issue got brought into the headlines.
I don't really understand how you can have a 'right' to feel one way or another?
Either way, is it really sad that people feel like they have the right to not be degraded on a large scale/daily basis?
And I have run across far fewer the thought the name was unacceptable. And run across very few (by far the minority) native Americans that find the word degrading.
Even among NFL fans a poll conducted only showed 10% found the name unacceptable.
And how are they being degraded? I dont know of a single soul who refers to native americans as "redskins" In fact anyone I know who even mentions the word "redskins" automatically assumes it is in reference to a football team.
Either way. If you (anyone) feels a word degrades you. It is only because you allow it to. Not because it is in fact degrading. Words only have the power over you that you allow them to have.
You dont have the right ot not feel degraded because of a word or something some one said. If that were the case there would be very few people in government as all one would need to do is look at some of the things stated in campaigns.
And your perceived right to not be degraded does not trump anothers actual honest to goodness actually written down right to free speech. It is the same right that one has to complain about a name that gives the one complained about to use it.
Things like liberty and freedom arent just about having the words and names you like. But also the ones you dont. Otherwise its neither liberty nor freedom
-
And I have yet to find one single person explain to me how the term is actually degrading.
The name is not used as a derogatory one. I have never in my life heard anyone refer to any Native American as a "Redskin"; only the football team. On AMC's Hell On Wheels last year I heard them insert the term into the dialogue as if it were a commonly used phrased; yeahhh right. It would never have been acceptable if it were once used back then as such.
In AZ we have lots of reservations, you'll see team mascots named the Redskins and you'll see many Native Americans here wearing Redskins apparel; go figure if it's soooo derogatory.
At my High School there was a large group of Native Amercians that ran together; most of them wore Redskins apparel...
This was a red herring provided by Bob Costas & Co. to supplant the Benghazi investigation.
-
1.) No matter the subject, someone will ALWAYS take offense to something someone else says. It's human nature. Thus, the idea of PC is in and of itself silly.
2.) It's curious how issues like this get "brought to light" every so often. It's even more curious that these "issues" are brought up about the same time that other, far more serious concerns start making the news and/or certain political events are taking place. :headscratch:
3.) I've always found it amusing how some of my fellow citizens, who are usually the supporters / standard bearers for non-issue "issues" like this, have no clue whatsoever about how easily they are being manipulated. I guess Lenin and Stalin were right about "useful idiots". :lol
Bread and circuses, anyone? :aok
-
This was a red herring provided by Bob Costas & Co. to supplant the Benghazi investigation.
:lol :aok
Costas isn't smart enough (he is also a "useful idiot").....but I'm sure someone higher up the food chain saw the advantages.
-
And I have run across far fewer the thought the name was unacceptable. And run across very few (by far the minority) native Americans that find the word degrading.
Even among NFL fans a poll conducted only showed 10% found the name unacceptable.
And how are they being degraded? I dont know of a single soul who refers to native americans as "redskins" In fact anyone I know who even mentions the word "redskins" automatically assumes it is in reference to a football team.
Either way. If you (anyone) feels a word degrades you. It is only because you allow it to. Not because it is in fact degrading. Words only have the power over you that you allow them to have.
You dont have the right ot not feel degraded because of a word or something some one said. If that were the case there would be very few people in government as all one would need to do is look at some of the things stated in campaigns.
And your perceived right to not be degraded does not trump anothers actual honest to goodness actually written down right to free speech. It is the same right that one has to complain about a name that gives the one complained about to use it.
Things like liberty and freedom arent just about having the words and names you like. But also the ones you dont. Otherwise its neither liberty nor freedom
Perhaps right is not the correct word, and note how the legality of using the term is not being called into question.
There's just a common shift in our cultural thinking that has gone to 'if this word disenfranchises a group of people, or even a subset of a group of people, why use it?' This goes beyond enacting legislation or anything like that, but just setting cultural standards of what is or is not acceptable to say, and what will earn you criticism from society at large (it's also important to note that people using their free speech to criticize others' free speech is not a violation of either groups')
There's been a huge shift in this probably even within the past 10 or 20 years. I guess this is what makes a lot of people upset, especially because it's happening so rapidly.
It's something I first came to realize when I was studying FCC regulations for radio broadcast - especially the comparison of terms that are considered kosher after 10pm compared to the words that are banned at all times. Words like f*g, f*gg*t and d*ke are fine as per the FCC as long as you reserve their use for after 10pm - while, outside of the dated FCC regulations, in a working modern context these words are far more insulting and taboo than practically anything on the FCC ban list. Even words like retard are largely being phased out of regular speech (this is of course among younger people primarily, not people from, example, my parents generation who grew up with these words being insults, but the taboo of the word coming from being associated with that group rather than the word being a demeaning way to refer to that group). I remember going over these lists with my friends and "colleagues" and basically saying things along the lines of 'yeah, this is technically legal, but why would you ever say that?' Suffice to say it would be highly problematic if these words were actually used, just because they don't agree with modern cultural standards.
When our station voluntarily blacklisted the use of the word 'redskin' (after receiving a joint letter from a host of Native American activist organizations, granted it probably would have been phased out either way) it was done practically unanimously- again, with the thought, 'if there are people who find this offensive, why would we want to say it?' It comes down to: what's the point?
Either way. If you (anyone) feels a word degrades you. It is only because you allow it to. Not because it is in fact degrading. Words only have the power over you that you allow them to have.
I mean that's really easy to say when you've never actually had to deal with a deeply rooted words in a culture that is historically deeply rooted against you.
I think a large part of the shift in thinking that has led people to grow tired with the proliferation of the flow of this sort of language is a demographic shift. More and more people are either effected by this type of thing, and, more importantly, even among those not effected, it's easier to see how it effects your friends, family, etc. I think this is to some extent less stark as it relates to issues of race and discrimination/stereotyping on that front, but as we see how negatively it effects, say, women, it does make the somewhat more subtle effects it has on racial minorities more apparent.
And while we're removing one aspect of that from being acceptable in our culture, why not just remove all of it? It's easier that way.
The new golden rule is simply 'don't be a dick'
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #6
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/fGelg.jpg)
:aok
-
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/fGelg.jpg)
I have a feeling that Stephen Fry would be very ashamed to have that quote associated with him today, or that you're taking that quote out of context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE
Cultural standards on these issues are rising daily
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02dXAkxbyQg
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02dXAkxbyQg
So he was talking about using language to criticize ideas/beliefs, speaking against a blasphemy law, not defending the use of words to degrade groups of people.
Which he obviously has a huge problem with. As per the video I posted.
So it was taken out of context. Thanks for owning up to it.
-
No. He simply feels that the phrase "I'm offended by that" and similar whining is meaningless and deserves no respect whatsoever. If you're offended by something then do something about it, or don't. In either case don't just whine "I'm offended by that", as if you have the right to demand that others respect your feelings and your sensitivities.
-
Motherland:
Do you believe a small, loud and demanding group of people are entitled to dictate to the masses what the rest of society should do, how they should behave and what is acceptable in everyone's daily lives right down to nutrition label on a package of candy?
If so, I'll let this one go.
If not, stop following the red herring; look up the Oneida tribe, research the history of the name change movement ($); see what they want and think about why & when this issue gained popularity going on two years ago. Look who inserted himself into the conversation; before that it had been a stagnant and dead movement with little change in opinion for as long as I've been a Redskin fan (35 yrs).
-
Motherland:
Do you believe a small, loud and demanding group of people are entitled to dictate to the masses what the rest of society should do, how they should behave and what is acceptable in everyone's daily lives right down to nutrition label on a package of candy?
If so, I'll let this one go.
If not, stop following the red herring; look up the Oneida tribe, research the history of the name change movement ($); see what they want and think about why & when this issue gained popularity going on two years ago. Look who inserted himself into the conversation; before that it had been a stagnant and dead movement with little change in opinion for as long as I've been a Redskin fan (35 yrs).
Well said.
The only thing I would add is this: It's a very fine line between a nanny state and a police state.... and that line is easy to cross. You might, just might, get to see how easy it is in the near future.
-
Funny thign about the "Redskin" name is I dont know of anyone who refers to native americans as redskins even in a derogatory sense anymore. And anyone I do hear use the term "redskins" is in reference to the football team.
But if we are goign ot take offence over team names there are other names we need to remove as well.
"The GIANTS" promotes and mocks obesity
"the Brewers" promotes alcoholism
And what about the atrocities the "49ers" committed during the gold rush against the native American population?
And we also need to get rid of the names "Padres","Saints" and "Angels" because those names most assuredly must be offensive to atheists
The name and insignia of "The Raiders" promotes violent thievery and illegal piracy. As does the name "Pirates" and "Buccaneers"
Surely any true freedom loving American hates "The Reds"
And what about the near extermination of the Buffalo that "Buffalo Bill" took part of? Naturalists must take offense at that name "Buffalo Bills" too.
We all know that Southerners are offended by "The Yankees". Can you imagine the hubbub that there would be a if a professional team named themselves the "Johnny Rebs"?
And what about the "Cowboys" who helped drive the native Americans from their lands? Arent they offended at that too?
Vikings. Im sure some Englanders out these must be concerned about a name that represents the raping and pillaging of their country
"Orlando Magic" Magic has long been associated with witchcraft. Religious types are now offended
"Royals"...Well we dont have royalty in this country. In fact this country was formed to get away from royalty. The true blue american patriotic must hate this name.
PETA must be offended at the "Packer" name
The list of absurdities can go on and on.
Heres the sad part. We now live in a world where peoplethink they have the right to not only not be offended. But feel they have the right to not be offended at anything. And not only that but they feel they have the right to demand that people care if they are offended.
Here is the deal.
You have every right to be offended over anything you like however serious, absurd, or silly it may be. What you do NOT have the right of is to not be offended or to expect the world to care or do anything about it if you are.
Lets face it. There are plenty of things in the world that are truely worth being offended over. Child molestation and/or abuse, starvation, Rape, Murder, theft. Etc
But a word or a name? Gimme a break. What wonderful shape this world must be in that peoples biggest concern is what a team is named or what one person calls another.
It seems to me that if people or groups put half as much emphasis and effort into dealing with the problems that exist within their own group for example in the case of the word "redskins" the rampant drug and alcohol abuse problem that exists, as they do with worrying what names or words other people use. They would be far better off and in the end happier and more prosperous
Indeed :cheers:
-
See Rule #14
-
They are trying to control our minds bruh.
(http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp132/AXESMI59/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/AXESMI59/media/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799.jpg.html)
-
They are trying to control our minds bruh.
(http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp132/AXESMI59/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/AXESMI59/media/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799.jpg.html)
:lol
-
But for real, did anyone see that south park episode. Really hit the nail on the head with the whole redskins thing.
-
I'm offended by Motherland's name! It disenfranchises an oppressed sociofamilionational subgroup and is not congruent to modern cultural metastandards.
Its a outrage!
-
Perhaps right is not the correct word, and note how the legality of using the term is not being called into question.
There's just a common shift in our cultural thinking that has gone to 'if this word disenfranchises a group of people, or even a subset of a group of people, why use it?' This goes beyond enacting legislation or anything like that, but just setting cultural standards of what is or is not acceptable to say, and what will earn you criticism from society at large (it's also important to note that people using their free speech to criticize others' free speech is not a violation of either groups')
There's been a huge shift in this probably even within the past 10 or 20 years. I guess this is what makes a lot of people upset, especially because it's happening so rapidly.
It's something I first came to realize when I was studying FCC regulations for radio broadcast - especially the comparison of terms that are considered kosher after 10pm compared to the words that are banned at all times. Words like f*g, f*gg*t and d*ke are fine as per the FCC as long as you reserve their use for after 10pm - while, outside of the dated FCC regulations, in a working modern context these words are far more insulting and taboo than practically anything on the FCC ban list. Even words like retard are largely being phased out of regular speech (this is of course among younger people primarily, not people from, example, my parents generation who grew up with these words being insults, but the taboo of the word coming from being associated with that group rather than the word being a demeaning way to refer to that group). I remember going over these lists with my friends and "colleagues" and basically saying things along the lines of 'yeah, this is technically legal, but why would you ever say that?' Suffice to say it would be highly problematic if these words were actually used, just because they don't agree with modern cultural standards.
When our station voluntarily blacklisted the use of the word 'redskin' (after receiving a joint letter from a host of Native American activist organizations, granted it probably would have been phased out either way) it was done practically unanimously- again, with the thought, 'if there are people who find this offensive, why would we want to say it?' It comes down to: what's the point?
I mean that's really easy to say when you've never actually had to deal with a deeply rooted words in a culture that is historically deeply rooted against you.
I think a large part of the shift in thinking that has led people to grow tired with the proliferation of the flow of this sort of language is a demographic shift. More and more people are either effected by this type of thing, and, more importantly, even among those not effected, it's easier to see how it effects your friends, family, etc. I think this is to some extent less stark as it relates to issues of race and discrimination/stereotyping on that front, but as we see how negatively it effects, say, women, it does make the somewhat more subtle effects it has on racial minorities more apparent.
And while we're removing one aspect of that from being acceptable in our culture, why not just remove all of it? It's easier that way.
The new golden rule is simply 'don't be a dick'
Sorry. Dont buy into your argument.
Look. I was a skinny white kid who wore glasses with a Spanish last name
(though I happen to be mostly German and Irish) that went to a predominantly black and Hispanic school during the absolute height of racial tensions. Trust me. I got it from all sides. Blacks Whites and Hispanics and been called and labeled pretty much every derogatory name in the book you can imagine and got jumped and ganged up on for no other reason then I was white,or Hispanic or..because I wore glasses. Yet I never uttered a complaint or curled into a ball expecting everyone else to protect me or avoid saying things I might consider offensive.
As I told a group of underprivileged youths a few years ago. "There is always going to be something to be offended over. And some people might not like you due to your color, your height. or someone may not like me because I have long hair and a beard and call me a hippie. Thats ok. Let them say or think whatever they want. that is their right so long as they dont take action against you. And even if they do. You have two choices. You can either use such things as an excuse to fail. Or motivation to succeed. And THAT is up to you. YOU are the one who has the ultimate power over how you handle it"
Musta worked because a couple of months ago two of them spotted me and went out of their way to thank me for giving them that little speach
When you cowardly, yes I said "cowardly" cowtow to groups like this you are in effect telling them they are too weak for liberty and true freedom. and need to be protected from it That special concessions must be made to protect their fragile little egos. If someone was going out of their way to intentionally offend these groups. Like if you were to say to a native American. "Hey you. Redskin. Go fetch me a cigar." You might have a very small point as that would be an intent to offend. In the case of the NFL Redskins name. This is just cowardly on your stations part. There is no intent to offend there. Never has been regardless of the true reasons behind the name. That name has been there a long long time. What you are saying is a mere word is to be avoided because that single word might offend some group.
Tell me. When Athiests start organizing and screaming how they are offended by the team names Saints, Angels, or Padres. You going to stop using those names too? Or when MADD or Alcoholics Anonymous complains about the Brewers?
From your own station in life such moves against free speech including the use of the word "Redskins" by a station is nothing short of an abridgement of freedom of the press of which the FCC is nothing short of an abomination with regard to the first amendment.
I would argue in favor of fair use of words. ANY words rather then see certain words removed from use under pressure.
But as usual. We only care about the rights we like and the things we agree with. The rest must be smothered. Sorry but that aint freedom.
Freedom means you embrace the things you like. And at least tolerate and respect others rights for the things you dont. Yes. that means they or you get to be a dick regardless of your fictitious golden rule
It doesnt mean you carry on like a 3 year old "waaa Johnny said a name I dont like make him stop."
I fully agree with the guy in that audio clip "Im offended"..."Well so (blanking) what"
As for the Redskins name. For over 60 years nobody had a problem with it. Not even the Native Americans. NOW suddenly their offended. (and in reality is is only a very small percentage of them that are actually offended by it.
No. Its more like someone (read some small subset of a group) created an industry for themselves. And they are no different then any of the other cause bearers (insert your favorite cause fanatic here). They have no interest in actually seeing their cause corrected. Because in doing so it would mean no publicity and as a result. No funding.
-
Well said.
The only thing I would add is this: It's a very fine line between a nanny state and a police state.... and that line is easy to cross. You might, just might, get to see how easy it is in the near future.
Nanny and imaginary "golden rules" very often evolve into actual legal laws. Thats how many of the laws we have got their start
More laws almost always equal less liberty
-
and what are we going to do about the Vikings?
-
and what are we going to do about the Vikings?
I've heard a Scandinavian group is planning a lawsuit. ;)
-
Only if they suck at whatever sport they're playing...
-
lol, project much?
-
Only if they suck at whatever sport they're playing...
Well....they kinda do.....and there are other....ahhhhhhh...."issues".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/10/13/adrian-peterson-pleads-not-guilty-to-a-felony-child-abuse-charge/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/10/13/adrian-peterson-pleads-not-guilty-to-a-felony-child-abuse-charge/)
:bolt:
-
Child abuse... Check. Any rape or pillaging?
-
Child abuse... Check. Any rape or pillaging?
Nope. At least none with that specific team. :lol
-
I've heard a Scandinavian group is planning a lawsuit. ;)
ACLU would touch this one? :headscratch: