- 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 2:45 pm to SabiDojo
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:45 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
Posted by SabiDojo quote: A lot of times there is politics involved and you never know what their motivations are. That's ridiculous.
That's very naive if you believe people wouldn't say something they don't really believe to push an agenda.
0
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:47 pm to SabiDojo
quote:It's not ridiculous. It happens all the time. They may be helping somebody else push an agenda in return for something else that they want to get done.
That's ridiculous.
Or any multitude of other kinds of reasons.
Citing a political group as the voice for a group of people is dicey because you don't know their real motivations.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 3:34 pm to PrimeTime Money
off topic, but whatever side you're on, you're in for a long wait if you think they're changing the name
look at the comments on this article and how they were upvoted and downvoted...not necessarily a scientific approach, but I think it is fairly indicative of how the NFL CONSUMER feels
LINK
and I hate to tell you that is the #1 thing Snyder and all of the owners will consider when approaching this topic.
The owners are businessmen first, that's how they came to be able to own NFL teams in the first place...corporate sponsors, networks, vendors, etc. aren't going to protest as long as the NFL brand is this untouchable. shite the NFL could dump the networks and make the whole fricking thing a subscription based PPV type deal and make even more money. These guys think they can get big stars to give them a cut of their tour revenue for the privilege to perform at the SB...32 guys who know they're on top and have all the leverage with anyone they deal with
personally I think they'll start trending downwards...it's oversaturation and I believe the changes are going to start slowly turning people off. When their branding takes a hit, that's when this whole thing will ratchet up again, and the NFL may yield, who knows
look at the comments on this article and how they were upvoted and downvoted...not necessarily a scientific approach, but I think it is fairly indicative of how the NFL CONSUMER feels
LINK
and I hate to tell you that is the #1 thing Snyder and all of the owners will consider when approaching this topic.
The owners are businessmen first, that's how they came to be able to own NFL teams in the first place...corporate sponsors, networks, vendors, etc. aren't going to protest as long as the NFL brand is this untouchable. shite the NFL could dump the networks and make the whole fricking thing a subscription based PPV type deal and make even more money. These guys think they can get big stars to give them a cut of their tour revenue for the privilege to perform at the SB...32 guys who know they're on top and have all the leverage with anyone they deal with
personally I think they'll start trending downwards...it's oversaturation and I believe the changes are going to start slowly turning people off. When their branding takes a hit, that's when this whole thing will ratchet up again, and the NFL may yield, who knows
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 3:48 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:Of course not. That's what you're doing. You're telling us that our current dictionaries are all wrong because a dictionary from 29 years ago says something different.
Care to explain why the dictionary is wrong?
Like I said, please don't ever research anything important. I say this because you suck at compiling data for research.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 3:51 pm to ballscaster
well shite, I need to start printing dictionaries
there's about to be a linguistic revolution in this mafricka
there's about to be a linguistic revolution in this mafricka
Posted on 8/21/14 at 3:58 pm to DelU249
quote:You people are so anxious to connect any issue to the scourge of political correctness that you'll throw a complete tantrum over the idea of changing a sports team nickname that the dictionary defines as racist, offensive, disparaging, insulting, and pejorative.
but it is indicative of another issue and quite frankly even that doesn't matter...though it does baffle the bajesus out of me...
political correctness, the motivations, the tactics employed to enact changes wanted, the use of language, and a very interesting way of censoring people. And it is somewhat personal for me because of personal things that what I think I'm communicating in a very clear manner is more often than the average person...not clearly received...despite lengthy explanation over even the most minute things
Let this one go. Sometimes the other side is right. This is one of those times. There is no moral reason anyone should fight to keep this name. Either you think the name is no big deal, in which case you'll have no problem letting it go, or you think the name is a really big deal, legitimizing the opinions of those offended by the name.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:02 pm to ballscaster
quote:
There is no moral reason anyone should fight to keep this name
there is no moral reason to fight to change it
and no one is fighting to keep it, quite the opposite...people can have an opinion, see things a certain way and be absolutely fascinated by an issue (i hesitate to call it that) without "fighting"
What's drawn me in recently is phil simms, I am very curious to see the NFL's reaction when their distributors employees take a stance...very curious.
They're not changing it, so I don't really care. I hate political correctness, but I don't care when it is failing so miserably.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:03 pm to BOSCEAUX
quote:Or maybe they did what you and other backward thinkers refuse to do and put 30 seconds of honest, rational thought into the subject in a time when people seem to be discussing it often, and they have determined that it is best for them not to use the word anymore.
They said it and wrote it their entire lives. Attention whores jumping on the bandwagon once it picked up steam.
People can change their minds. People like you can't, but most people can.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:04 pm to genro
quote:+1
FYI these are the possible outcomes
1. Snyder has a change of heart and voluntarily changes the name
2. The protest rages on, eventually mellows out, nothing happens
3. The protest reaches a significant enough level to affect the bottom line, Snyder is financially forced to change the name
4. Snyder is politically forced out or politically forced to change the name
#4 is the only one I would have a problem with.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:04 pm to ballscaster
quote:
backward thinkers refuse to do and put 30 seconds of honest, rational thought into the subject
you're right, I usually don't limit myself to 30 seconds
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:05 pm to DelU249
quote:This is factually incorrect.
there is no moral reason to fight to change it
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:11 pm to ballscaster
I didn't know morals were a matter of fact 
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:12 pm to DelU249
quote:Didn't say they were.
I didn't know morals were a matter of fact
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:15 pm to ballscaster
I'm just giving back what you give. You can morally justify anything.
You keep trying to view this as a one way street. It's not.
Try going over that 30 second limit and follow the chain of posts
You keep trying to view this as a one way street. It's not.
Try going over that 30 second limit and follow the chain of posts
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:20 pm to ballscaster
quote:
People can change their minds
Usually when they do, they can explain it. Most of the those who oppose the name can't give you any kind of detailed explanation as to why. People can change their minds, they can also blindly follow catching trends and/or succumb to peer pressure
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:21 pm to DelU249
quote:No you're not. As much as you've talked about this issue, you really haven't provided any valuable material.
I'm just giving back what you give.
There is a moral reason to campaign for the name change. A simple gander at a current American dictionary will show you what I mean.
There is no moral reason to campaign to keep the name because to do so requires one to contradict himself. That is, either the name is offensive and wrong, or it isn't a big deal. Either way, no rational or moral thinker can conclude that the name itself is worth fighting for.
Those throwing all these tantrums complaining about those wanting the name to be changed are being dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:34 pm to ballscaster
quote:
There is no moral reason to campaign to keep the name
I'm not even sure why you think that's a criteria that must be met. Snyder's is a financial one. Moreover, how you can say there isn't a moral reason without viewing morals as a specifically defined code with factual basis. People have different moral codes. Some people do think it is a big deal. I don't and I don't have a moral justification to "fight" not am I fighting; however if I wanted to I can do so without moral justification. Lastly, while I find the idea of opposing the name that is racist to be morally justifiable, I (and many others-a majority of others) don't think it's racist which would mean I don't find your reason to be morally just.
You're a new breed - a dictionary thumper. Praise be to oxford.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:36 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Either way, no rational or moral thinker can conclude that the name itself is worth fighting for.
quote:
Those throwing all these tantrums
you're using some very tantrumtastic words.This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:37 pm to ballscaster
Here's the thing: the term Redskins is not inherently offensive. Yes, some people take offense to it. But it is a neutral physical description. Have we got to the point where describing someones physical appearance, or acknowledging physical appearance is negative and offensive?
Remove all the perceptions youve been told you should have. Is calling someone a description based on their skin (redskin) different than hair (brunette) or height (the Giants) or eye color (old blue eyes)? No its not. Redskin doesnt imply anything negative.
Remove all the perceptions youve been told you should have. Is calling someone a description based on their skin (redskin) different than hair (brunette) or height (the Giants) or eye color (old blue eyes)? No its not. Redskin doesnt imply anything negative.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 4:38 pm to ballscaster
quote:
There is no moral reason to campaign to keep the name because to do so requires one to contradict himself. That is, either the name is offensive and wrong, or it isn't a big deal. Either way, no rational or moral thinker can conclude that the name itself is worth fighting for.
My name is neither offensive or a big deal, but id fight you if you forced me to change it. Its my name.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News