- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are the Redskins getting so much heat?
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:12 am to TigerinATL
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:12 am to TigerinATL
Then why aren't more injuns offended by it? It's literally about 10% of the savage population that thinks Redskins is offensive. Probably about the same number of crackers offended by Fighting Irish, and that's just because 10% of the population likes to look for lame shite to get upset about.
ETA: I realize half the population is made up of women so obviously that 10% figure only applies to males.
ETA: I realize half the population is made up of women so obviously that 10% figure only applies to males.
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 9:27 am
0
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:14 am to JG77056
Liberals mostly.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:21 am to TT9
I just want some Somalis to start voicing their displeasure about the Raiders and the Buccaneers, or some white people to start being offended by the awful Carolina black panther mascot. And don't get me started on those racist Browns, like we don't all know what the hidden meaning is behind that name....in Cleveland.
I even think the Steelers are just a racist misspelling of what they think of their inner city youth.
Ban them all.
I even think the Steelers are just a racist misspelling of what they think of their inner city youth.
Ban them all.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:38 am to Sevendust912
quote:That's because it's not a racist term.
I have never once hear anyone use the term Redskin when not referring to the football team.
I decided to do a little research. So, I took a walk into my office and grabbed the dictionaries from off of my bookshelf. They are from 1985.
I decided to see what the dictionary said about racist terms in 1985. Was the term "redskin" being re-branded as racist now-a-days when it was never a racist term before?
So I opened it up to see what the dictionary from 1985 says about different racist terms.
Notice how they very clearly state when a term is offensive.
Now, let's see what they say about "redskin":
This proves to me that the term "redskin" was never racist.
Only recently have self-righteous white people tried to re-brand the term as racist.
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 11:10 am
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:40 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
This proves to me that the term "redskin" was never racist.
You can't be serious. Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:43 am to SabiDojo
quote:Why not?
You can't be serious.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 9:52 am to genro
quote:They're being used as political footballs. I guarantee it.
LINK
It's not like they've been fighting for this since their inception back in the '40's.
They are playing the political game.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 10:20 am to udtiger
quote:
Without getting too political
quote:
This is what happens when you elect a "community organizer" as president.
Aside from the fact that the only time our President has opined on this issue is when he's been asked his opinion, the "victims" in this situation are those opposing the name change. Not one person has offered more incendiary words than Mike Ditka, and 90% of the bitching about this situation, from what I've seen, is coming from people who sound threatened by the idea of a name change.
So your "age of the victim" point is a good point aimed at the wrong people.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 10:22 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:Please don't ever research anything important.
That's because it's not a racist term.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 10:30 am to ballscaster
quote:Care to explain why the dictionary is wrong?
Please don't ever research anything important.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 10:39 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Perpetuated by dictionaries for nearly a century, it's surely the most persistent scientific howler in the history of the English language. Siphons – those ingenious plastic tubes we use to fill or drain everything from aquariums to petrol tanks – move liquid by "the force of atmospheric pressure".
Except, how could a siphon possibly work by a difference in pressure when atmospheric pressure is the same for the liquid at both ends of the tube? Bleeding obvious when you think about it. Even I can figure that out 25 years after I scraped through A level physics.
The prestigious Oxford English Dictionary and numerous online dictionaries say much the same. Apparently the OED has been getting it wrong since 1911. Surely in all that time somebody must have noticed?
LINK
Posted on 8/21/14 at 10:48 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Because America is growing more stupid by the day.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 10:48 am to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Because America is growing more stupid by the day.
This
Posted on 8/21/14 at 10:52 am to tigerpimpbot
Getting a definition wrong when dealing with a scientific subject is a lot different than not recognizing a common term as racist.
You have to have scientific knowledge to write scientific definitions.
You just have to speak English to know which words are racist. We all know them.
The dictionary didn't say it was offensive, vulgar, racist, or anything. Just a word relating to American Indians.
You have to have scientific knowledge to write scientific definitions.
You just have to speak English to know which words are racist. We all know them.
The dictionary didn't say it was offensive, vulgar, racist, or anything. Just a word relating to American Indians.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 11:06 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
You just have to speak English to know which words are racist.
quote:
On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget.[2] This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 11:13 am to genro
That is a completely different scenario. In that case, a black person misconstrued a word that sounds very similar to a word that is a known racist word. He knew what the slur was.
He didn't know that a similar-sounding word wasn't related to the slur.
Has nothing to do with the "n-word" itself.
He didn't know that a similar-sounding word wasn't related to the slur.
Has nothing to do with the "n-word" itself.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 11:21 am to PrimeTime Money
Physically descriptive nicknames are generally offensive and rude in our country. You don't call a stranger "short stuff" or "big chin" or "darkie" unless you're trying to piss them off. And this one isn't even accurate, various individuals within the various Native tribes can be many different shades. It's literally the exact same thing as calling Jewish people, "the BigNoses", and naming your team that.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 11:23 am to JG77056
quote:
heat
quote:
red
quote:
skin
no sunscreen I imagine
Posted on 8/21/14 at 11:27 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
The dictionary didn't say it was offensive, vulgar, racist, or anything. Just a word relating to American Indians.
So the definition wasn't penned by an American Indian working in the dictionary office.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News