What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bad News For Liberals. (1 Viewer)

Okay SCOTUS says you can trademark racist names, they didn't say the name isn't racist.

So, congratulations I guess.

 
Trying to think of the most offensive name someone can come up with for a band, team, or group.   Someone is going to push this baby way over the cliff.  

 
Lots of silly in here.  Starting with the idea that trademarks are "weaponizing" government to protect property.  That’s not what trademarks are for. 

 
rude classless thugs said:
I didn't click on the link, but is this a new poll or rather the same discredited poll that was shot down repeatedly for methodology problems in the Redskins thread?
It's the first one that turned up on Google.  I don't follow the Redskins thread.

 
rude classless thugs said:
I didn't click on the link, but is this a new poll or rather the same discredited poll that was shot down repeatedly for methodology problems in the Redskins thread?
The you're not a real native argument?

 
The you're not a real native argument?
I think the respondents were asked to self identify as Native Americans, but no actual proof required...much like Elizabeth Warren, so draw your own conclusions as to the validity.

 
I bet there's a thread for that. Is it really necessary to stalk him in this one? Perhaps you could try to stay on topic instead.
Huh? I'm not stalking anybody and this thread is about the government's reach regarding moral issues. 

 
Huh? I'm not stalking anybody and this thread is about the government's reach regarding moral issues
Question for you.  It has probably been a decade or so since you and I went around and around along these lines in an abortion thread.  And over the years I have admitted that there are many traps where I exhibit hypocrisy.  But if I were to argue that imposing morality was not in and of itself a legitimate "state interest" would you tell me that I am wrong?  

If you reply I'm not sure when I'll get back to this, so forgive me for asking the question and running off.

 
LOL at "weaponize government."  Enforcing trademarks is "weaponizing government" in restraint of speech.  Dan Snyder now has the right to employ the power of the federal government to prevent others from using the phrase "Washington Redskins" in commerce. 
Don't all owners have that protection?

 
You're living in a bubble, then.  There are lots and lots of people out there who think the name is fine and are actively opposed to changing it.  A huge, overwhelming majority of Native Americans do not consider the name offensive.

(If I were Dan Snyder, I would change the name because it's a distraction.  But maybe he prefers that people focus on this issue, as opposed to the team's on-the-field results).     
FWIW, that's a bit of a "finger on the scales" poll.  If the only two options you give people are "do you find this offensive or does it not bother you," they're gonna trend towards the passive answer.  Nobody wants to look like they're oversensitive.  I'm Jewish and if you asked me that same question about a team called the Kikes or whatever I'd probably say "eh, whatever, I've got bigger problems," but it should still be obvious that the name is not acceptable.  The better question in that survey is probably the question of whether you feel it's disrespectful or not, where over 20% of Native Americans said it was. Personally that's enough for me to think it should be changed, but YMMV.  I'd love to see someone ask Native Americans the simple question "would you prefer the team change its name or leave it as Redskins" and see those results.

Also the poll doesn't stand for the proposition you claim, i.e. that "lots of people think the name is fine and are actively opposed to changing it."  There's a big difference between thinking something is acceptable and being actively opposed to changing it.  The only people I know of who are actively opposed to changing it are some Redskins fans (understandable emotional attachment to name), NFL owners (don't like threats to their omnipotence) and weirdo anti-PC warriors (too busy sending hate mail to William Shakespeare).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trying to think of the most offensive name someone can come up with for a band, team, or group.   Someone is going to push this baby way over the cliff.  
That's the irony though right?  People are all for free speech when they are only offending brown people. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top