Two questions on what's offensive

[FishHead 3]

Before I ask, let me say that I am so sorry to see this Redskins issue fall on political sides (which it basically has .. as most things here do).

Shame.

I was a Republican for many years but now see myself as an Independent. I see many of this board's discussions from both sides. It's amazing how most don't.

Again, shame.

 

Now my 2 questions:

IF a Native American was majority owner of the Redskins, would there be this discussion?

And secondly, what if a few black rappers bought a professional franchise and called them the Niggas or even Niggers, would there be a fuss in the black community? I've heard many a black person say it's only offensive if it comes out the mouth of a white person.

 

Anybody got an opinion (because I think politics might not be in play here)?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

#1 - A decent question. I suspect if they had a Native American majority owner he would change the name. If he didn't I think there would still be a controversy but I suppose you'd have to give a lot more credence to the "not every Native American finds it offensive" argument.

 

#2 - Yes there would absolutely be a "fuss." Dumb question IMO

[RLLD 4,275]

It's difficult to apply logic or attempt a correlation here. A subject such as this, built entirely on emotion instead of logic, simply cannot be reasoned.

 

I am personally far more disgusted by those seeking to deny others their right to decide their team name, or to free speech, than I am by almost anyone else.

 

People have fought and died for centuries now to protect our freedoms from the likes of these repugnant pieces of excrement.

[Frank M 181]

It's difficult to apply logic or attempt a correlation here. A subject such as this, built entirely on emotion instead of logic, simply cannot be reasoned.

 

I am personally far more disgusted by those seeking to deny others their right to decide their team name, or to free speech, than I am by almost anyone else.

 

People have fought and died for centuries now to protect our freedoms from the likes of these repugnant pieces of excrement.

 

Freedom to what? Insult others with impunity just because you don't find it offensive?

[Vikings4ever 568]

3. If a German owner wanted to name their team the Krauts, offensive?

[FishHead 3]

#1 - A decent question. I suspect if they had a Native American majority owner he would change the name. If he didn't I think there would still be a controversy but I suppose you'd have to give a lot more credence to the "not every Native American finds it offensive" argument.

 

#2 - Yes there would absolutely be a "fuss." Dumb question IMO

 

Okay, fair enough. But if the Native American owned the Redskins AND DIDN'T CHANGE THE NAME, would non Native Americans have the audacity to insert that it was an offensive name?

And on the 2nd query, I sure don't see blacks throwing a fit concerning how many times the N-word is tossed around in rap songs. Certainly not enough to have them banned from public airplay.

No indignation there.

[drobeski 3,061]

It's difficult to apply logic or attempt a correlation here. A subject such as this, built entirely on emotion instead of logic, simply cannot be reasoned.

 

I am personally far more disgusted by those seeking to deny others their right to decide their team name, or to free speech, than I am by almost anyone else.

 

People have fought and died for centuries now to protect our freedoms from the likes of these repugnant pieces of excrement.

this guy gets it

[5-Points 3,766]

 

Freedom to what? Insult others with impunity just because you don't find it offensive?

That's part of the freedom of speech. We have the right to say things others may find offensive or insulting. You can insult me all you want and I'll laugh it off. Now, if you insult my wife in front of me you might find yourself missing a few teeth and I'll gladly go to jail for it.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

It's difficult to apply logic or attempt a correlation here. A subject such as this, built entirely on emotion instead of logic, simply cannot be reasoned.

 

I am personally far more disgusted by those seeking to deny others their right to decide their team name, or to free speech, than I am by almost anyone else.

 

People have fought and died for centuries now to protect our freedoms from the likes of these repugnant pieces of excrement.

I'm all for free speech so I agree that the government should not get involved (unless it was "hate speech" which is certainly a bridge too far here). That's why I was against the FTC's ruling re the trademark.

 

However if public pressure should operate such that the Redskins feel compelled to change their name or the NFL feels compelled to do it for them, well that's just the free market at work and is not really a "free speech" issue at all.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Okay, fair enough. But if the Native American owned the Redskins AND DIDN'T CHANGE THE NAME, would non Native Americans have the audacity to insert that it was an offensive name?

And on the 2nd query, I sure don't see blacks throwing a fit concerning how many times the N-word is tossed around in rap songs. Certainly not enough to have them banned from public airplay.

No indignation there.

You are clearly trolling in regards to your second "question"

[Sho Nuff 720]

The trademark thing hasnot denied Snyder the right to call his team that.

[RLLD 4,275]

 

Freedom to what? Insult others with impunity just because you don't find it offensive?

 

Freedom means that you cant scream at the top of your lungs that which I would spend a lifetime opposing, but you still get to do it. My forefathers died in battle for this all the way back to little round top, and I also fought and served. IF you cannot agree to actual freedom, you dont deserve to have it.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

Freedom means that you cant scream at the top of your lungs that which I would spend a lifetime opposing, but you still get to do it. My forefathers died in battle for this all the way back to little round top, and I also fought and served. IF you cannot agree to actual freedom, you dont deserve to have it.

Let's say some guy is screaming some dumb sh!t at the top of his lungs and a bunch of people walking by say "jeez, what an assh0le", so the guy stops screaming because he's worried word will get around that he's an assh0le.

 

Free speech issue? Because the above scenario is basically what we're dealing with here - public pressure as opposed to state action.

[RLLD 4,275]

I'm all for free speech so I agree that the government should not get involved (unless it was "hate speech" which is certainly a bridge too far here). That's why I was against the FTC's ruling re the trademark.

 

However if public pressure should operate such that the Redskins feel compelled to change their name or the NFL feels compelled to do it for them, well that's just the free market at work and is not really a "free speech" issue at all.

 

 

When it comes to a business, there are stipulations, when you agree to a contract you often agree to forsake your freedoms for the benefits of association and that is between those two parties. But I oppose the mitigation of freedom, even though the two parties agreed to foresake said freedom. And while I oppose it, I still support their freedom to give up their individual freedoms.

 

Unless you have been face to face with the world at large, which is a very sketchy place, you cannot always apreciate the value of the freedoms we take for granted, and seem too often willing to give up. In my travels across the globe during my 12 years in the marines I have met some very good people in the worst of places, and some very bad people as well. I sometimes lament the frail barrier that exists between "us" and the danger that exists.

[RLLD 4,275]

Let's say some guy is screaming some dumb sh!t at the top of his lungs and a bunch of people walking by say "jeez, what an assh0le", so the guy stops screaming because he's worried word will get around that he's an assh0le.

 

Free speech issue? Because the above scenario is basically what we're dealing with here - public pressure as opposed to state action.

 

Not sure I understand your assertion, both people have the right to speak, honestly, it astonishes me that this is such a difficult notion. You speak and I speak, we disagree, but we can still speak despite that. How hard is that?

[Frank M 181]

 

Not sure I understand your assertion, both people have the right to speak, honestly, it astonishes me that this is such a difficult notion. You speak and I speak, we disagree, but we can still speak despite that. How hard is that?

 

It's not an issue of freedom of speech, Ray. Anybody can say whatever they want, even things others find offensive. Nobody has said that Daniel Snyder needs to change the name of his team or else. What you're missing is that just because you're free to say something or name something a certain name doesn't mean you should, particularly if it offends a group of people.

 

Just because things weren't deemed offensive in the past doesn't mean that people can't or shouldn't come to a realization that perhaps now it is and consider changing.

[RLLD 4,275]

 

It's not an issue of freedom of speech, Ray. Anybody can say whatever they want, even things others find offensive. Nobody has said that Daniel Snyder needs to change the name of his team or else. What you're missing is that just because you're free to say something or name something a certain name doesn't mean you should, particularly if it offends a group of people.

 

Just because things weren't deemed offensive in the past doesn't mean that people can't or shouldn't come to a realization that perhaps now it is and consider changing.

 

It is an issue of freedom, if not freedom of speach. People who oppose the naming of the team have every right to speak out, to not patronize the NFL or the team, but not the right to compel that entity in any other way to change. They can sue if they like of course. The notion that the name must change is coming from somewhere else, something entirely more sinister. The fraction of native americans likely do not posess the political or economic prowess to pressure, its this fear of being labeled, and its a sickness. There is a likelyhood that some message, performance, artistic exression or team name will offend someone. I do not feel comfortable that this discomfort can speak for the wider swatch of people, and compel change in this manner.

 

Whether a statement, or some other expression is deemed offensive or not, I have one response, too fcoking bad, too many people bled and died for freedom, how dare anyone seek to diminsh that freedom, and shame on anyone who supports such a pathetic notion. Be offended, by all means, and voice your opinion, and allow that offender to also voice theirs as well. Being offended is not a justification to silence others.

[Frank M 181]

 

It is an issue of freedom, if not freedom of speach. People who oppose the naming of the team have every right to speak out, to not patronize the NFL or the team, but not the right to compel that entity in any other way to change. They can sue if they like of course. The notion that the name must change is coming from somewhere else, something entirely more sinister. The fraction of native americans likely do not posess the political or economic prowess to pressure, its this fear of being labeled, and its a sickness. There is a likelyhood that some message, performance, artistic exression or team name will offend someone. I do not feel comfortable that this discomfort can speak for the wider swatch of people, and compel change in this manner.

 

Whether a statement, or some other expression is deemed offensive or not, I have one response, too fcoking bad, too many people bled and died for freedom, how dare anyone seek to diminsh that freedom, and shame on anyone who supports such a pathetic notion. Be offended, by all means, and voice your opinion, and allow that offender to also voice theirs as well. Being offended is not a justification to silence others.

 

Exactly who is being silenced? The US patent office made the decision that the name Redskins can be found disparaging, so they took away the exclusive rights to it. How is that silencing anybody?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

Not sure I understand your assertion, both people have the right to speak, honestly, it astonishes me that this is such a difficult notion. You speak and I speak, we disagree, but we can still speak despite that. How hard is that?

It seems you don't understand what "free speech" really means. Or at least in the First Amendment context.

 

Are you talking about something different?

 

I'm saying of course the Redskins can have a team name that some find offensive. But if enough people are offended and boycott them such that it hurts their wallets, or the wallets of the NFL at large, then eventually they are going to have to change the name.

 

I don't see that as a free speech issue. It'd be a free speech issue if the cops showed up at redskins HQ tomorrow and told Snyder they were going to arrest him if he didn't change the name.

[Voltaire 5,491]

Let's all get upset about a team name that's been this way since before we we all born and which has always been treated and used with class, respect, and dignity throughout our lifetimes.

 

I hope Dan Snyder doesn't give in to the PC bullying but this thing must be becoming a huge distraction to him and his team. It's not blowing over, it just gets bigger.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,332]

 

Freedom to what? Insult others with impunity just because you don't find it offensive?

Who is insulted? A small portion of the native american people? An even smaller portion of americans? If we ban everything that can offend just a handful of people, wouldnt everything be banned?

[Frozenbeernuts 2,332]

 

Exactly who is being silenced? The US patent office made the decision that the name Redskins can be found disparaging, so they took away the exclusive rights to it. How is that silencing anybody?

What if 100 people from texas decided they were offended by the name the texans? Are they then obligated to change their name?

 

How about this: how many people does it take to be offended in order for a teams named to be changed? 1, 10, 100, 1000? 1%, 10%, 50%? Or is there a different number?

[Frank M 181]

Who is insulted? A small portion of the native american people? An even smaller portion of americans? If we ban everything that can offend just a handful of people, wouldnt everything be banned?

 

First off, nobody's banning everything. This is the thing everybody's throwing out there. Nobody has banned any speech at all, the patent office has just said the name can be considered disparaging and removed his patent protection. Second, I was referring to Ray's contention that people fought and died to protect the right to say whatever they want, which I agree with. I just think that it's uniquely American to pound our chests and say "Men died so I could say things that you find offensive, so you're focked up for being sensitive about it."

[Frank M 181]

What if 100 people from texas decided they were offended by the name the texans? Are they then obligated to change their name?

 

How about this: how many people does it take to be offended in order for a teams named to be changed? 1, 10, 100, 1000? 1%, 10%, 50%? Or is there a different number?

 

No, there is no number. That's a stupid argument. It's been said that the only way to get Snyder to consider the name change is to hit him in the pocketbook.

 

I find it sad the amount of people that refuse to consider that the name could possibly be offensive, or even if they do, they don't care because they think it's a free speech issue. I see it as a "trying not to be an a$$hole" issue.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,332]

A stupid argument?! It is the argument! If it offended 1 person the who gives a flying fock. If it offended 99% of the country then it should be addressed.

 

If you stop doing something because it offends a small group of people then many more things will come to and end for no good reason.

 

And people dying for my countrys freedom does mean we should hold that right in high esteem. I really dont get your angle here.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,332]

I am offended by the name Packers because it could be misinterpreted as meaning fudge packers for short and i dont want my kids to hear that. Should they also change their name?

[Frank M 181]

A stupid argument?! It is the argument! If it offended 1 person the who gives a flying fock. If it offended 99% of the country then it should be addressed.

 

If you stop doing something because it offends a small group of people then many more things will come to and end for no good reason.

 

And people dying for my countrys freedom does mean we should hold that right in high esteem. I really dont get your angle here.

 

Once again: I just think that it's uniquely American to pound our chests and say "Men died so I could say things that you find offensive, so you're focked up for being sensitive about it."

 

In other words, I'm American, I can say whatever the fock I want. I don't give a flying fock if you're offended, in fact, you're focked up if you're offended because I can say whatever I want.

[Frank M 181]

Change the name or don't change the name, I don't care. I have a ton of Cleveland Indians gear that I'm not throwing away. Just be open to the fact that some people might find it offensive instead of judging them because of how they feel about it.

[shotsup 835]

This thread has turned offensive to me

[hoytdwow 202]

1. Yes

2. Yes

[peenie 1,963]

black people do not share or think with one brain therefore there are differing opinions about the n-word used in real life and in rap lyrics.

Here is just a handful of takes that I've heard from African Americans:

"No one should say it ever."
"No one should say the word '######,' but 'nigga' is fine."
"It depends on context, but the only context that's OK is when a black person says it."
"It depends on context but the only context that's OK is when we know the speaker isn't being racist."
"Damn rappers for saying it and giving everyone else permission to say it."
"Rappers might say it, but that doesn't mean it works outside of a song."
"The word has been reclaimed. Get over it."
"It's a great term for everyone, male or female, including my dog."
"No other group would dare answer to such a derogatory name."

 

[RLLD 4,275]

 

Exactly who is being silenced? The US patent office made the decision that the name Redskins can be found disparaging, so they took away the exclusive rights to it. How is that silencing anybody?

 

 

No one has yet been silenced, but the freedom of the owner to maintain his market brand is being assailed by a tiny group of people over an unfortunate misconception on their part. I do not care for any group of people who would take such action, but particularly so where it pertains to this instance; a name brought to bear that was inherited from native americans, who used it to descrive other native americans.

[RLLD 4,275]

Change the name or don't change the name, I don't care. I have a ton of Cleveland Indians gear that I'm not throwing away. Just be open to the fact that some people might find it offensive instead of judging them because of how they feel about it.

 

 

Being offended is not an open invitation to punish others.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,332]

 

 

Being offended is not an open invitation to punish others.

I dont think frank gets it.

[Frank M 181]

I dont think frank gets it.

 

I get it fine. I fail to see how anyone is getting punished. Is the name changing? Will Dan Snyder still make millions off of the name?

[Frank M 181]

 

 

No one has yet been silenced, but the freedom of the owner to maintain his market brand is being assailed by a tiny group of people over an unfortunate misconception on their part. I do not care for any group of people who would take such action, but particularly so where it pertains to this instance; a name brought to bear that was inherited from native americans, who used it to descrive other native americans.

 

So some are offended, some aren't. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. I'm sure there are plenty of Native Americans who will be happy to counter protest and show how much they revere the term Redskin since it means great honorable warrior and has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

 

At least that's what I think will happen if all you white guys are right.

[Frank M 181]

 

 

Being offended is not an open invitation to punish others.

 

It's an open invitation to protest. It's one of the great things about being American. If we don't like something, we have lots of avenues to address what we don't like. It's one of the things you fought for.

[RLLD 4,275]

 

It's an open invitation to protest. It's one of the great things about being American. If we don't like something, we have lots of avenues to address what we don't like. It's one of the things you fought for.

 

I encourage the protest, I encourage the discourse, so long as the protests and discourse do not devolve into efforts to silence.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,332]

 

I get it fine. I fail to see how anyone is getting punished. Is the name changing? Will Dan Snyder still make millions off of the name?

If 5 native americans found the name frank offensive, saying it represents a slur on native americans, even though it doesnt, would you change your name?

[Frank M 181]

If 5 native americans found the name frank offensive, saying it represents a slur on native americans, even though it doesnt, would you change your name?

 

 

 

You can stop with the what-if scenarios. I already said I don't care if he changes the name.