Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

I chose Jewish stereotypes because I'm Jewish so I felt comfortable

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Do you have a point or is this just another example of white people problems?

It's a question, that apparently, you don't have an answer for.

The answer is that is a stupid point you are trying to make. I know where you are trying to go with this but the only answer is that it's okay because they say it's okay.If it bothers you so much no one is preventing you from going up to a group of young black men and dropping a couple "What's up my ####as?" or "####a please!".

Go for it and Godspeed to you.

It doesn't bother me, I just find it an interesting social dynamic. It isn't logical that a subset of a group that finds a term offensive to adopt that term. And if they did it seems the larger group would take as much if not more offence to it. It not being logical makes it harder to explain so I'm not surprised your answer is just to attack the question.

no the answer is because they are okay with it. Doesn't matter if it fits your logic or not.Accept it and move on.

Just because doesn't really fit for an answer for anything. More avoidance really.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just curious, but would an atheist have a claim against the Saint's Fleur-De-Lis?

At what point will "Chief" also be deemed derogatory towards Native Americans?

his post makes zero sense. redskins is offensive to native Americans because it is a derogatory term for them. is a saint a derogatory term for an atheist?

First of all if MattyI (Matty Ice?) is a falcs fan he should be disqualified from this discussion, this could be a sneaky sneak attack.

About the fleur de lis: there are actually some locals who claim that it was a symbol of French oppression via slavery and they object to that. Also, the state essentially flushes money into Tom Benson's pockets so the argument could be made that it violates separation of church and state, which if the light bulb went off in some activist freak's head I could see being some kind of crazy cause.

There's more crazy causes than there are stars in the sky. They'd need a legal hook for their crazy cause to have any significance. I can't imagine one.

Not that it would matter because there's zero chance a review board would ever find it disparaging, but just out of curiosity- is the Fleur-de-Lis even trademarked? That thing is all over town. The Saints aren't even the first thing I think of when I see one; I think of New Orleans generally.

 

[matttyl]

Just curious, but would an atheist have a claim against the Saint's Fleur-De-Lis?

At what point will "Chief" also be deemed derogatory towards Native Americans?

Why would the fleur de lis be considered derogatory toward atheists?

It's a Christian symbol. Don't mean to go all Dan Brown in here, but....The Fleur-De-Lis Christian symbol with its association with the lily represents purity, and in turn to the Virgin Mary. As the Fleur-De-Lis is composed of three petals and three sepals it also symbolizes the Trinity.

Right. Why doe a christian symbol disparage an atheist? That's my question.

First off, I view the name change thing as mostly a "politically correct" thing, which may be totally wrong - but that's how I felt after Bob Kostas (I think it was) had his rant during an NFL broadcast last year about the R word and that the network would no longer use it going forward. That was well before this most recent news of the trademark being pulled, obviously. My question is how far can you go in the name of being "politically correct"? With that said....

I'm not an atheist, so I can't say first hand, but - I've always felt that the First Amendment's "Freedom of Religion" also means/meant "Freedom from Religion". The Freedom From Religion Foundation, or FFRF, apparently feels the same way. So if I live in or around New Orleans and I'm an atheist (or quite frankly any religion other than Catholic/Christian) why when I look at my local NFL team do I have to see a religious symbol that's not of my religion, or any religious symbol at all? Further, since we're talking about team names here, why does that team name have to be "Saints", a tribute to the Catholic holiday of All Saints Day? I understand that Catholicism is the major religion of the area, but it's by no means the only religion.

Just a thought.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just curious, but would an atheist have a claim against the Saint's Fleur-De-Lis?

At what point will "Chief" also be deemed derogatory towards Native Americans?

his post makes zero sense. redskins is offensive to native Americans because it is a derogatory term for them. is a saint a derogatory term for an atheist?

First of all if MattyI (Matty Ice?) is a falcs fan he should be disqualified from this discussion, this could be a sneaky sneak attack.

About the fleur de lis: there are actually some locals who claim that it was a symbol of French oppression via slavery and they object to that. Also, the state essentially flushes money into Tom Benson's pockets so the argument could be made that it violates separation of church and state, which if the light bulb went off in some activist freak's head I could see being some kind of crazy cause.

There's more crazy causes than there are stars in the sky. They'd need a legal hook for their crazy cause to have any significance. I can't imagine one.

Not that it would matter because there's zero chance a review board would ever find it disparaging, but just out of curiosity- is the Fleur-de-Lis even trademarked? That thing is all over town. The Saints aren't even the first thing I think of when I see one; I think of New Orleans generally.

No, it's not TM'd, thank god. It's taken on a much bigger meaning for us since Katrina. It's on the city flag, it's on people's walls outside and inside, it's on our doormats, in our kitchens, it's practically on our foreheads.

The curmudgeon Benson has been suing every poor guy who tries slapping Who Dat on any tshirt, bumper sticker or birthday cake he finds out about though.

 

[The Commish]

The test isn't "is anyone offended?"

To the question posed? Of course it is. You lawyer guys feel free to add whatever adjectives you feel necessary to answer the question in lawyer terms. Guy asked a simple question and I think it's pretty clear what he was getting at. My guess is most atheists wouldn't know what he was talking about in the first place, but that's a different discussion.

Actually the question posed was derogatory, which is close to the correct question- the actual question is whether the trademark consists of "matter ... which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." The answer to that question w/r/t the Fleur de Lis is obviously no, in my opinion.

You changed it to "is anyone offended," which is irrelevant (that's not the legal standard) and also impossible to know. Only the person you're asking about can know if they're offended or not.

awesome....until it is, right?

Well, no. The legal standard is whether the matter may disparage at the time of the registration.

But don't let that stop you from making a preposterous slippery slope argument.

My "argument" (though I really don't see me making one here) isn't any more preposterous than equating redskin with the N word or hook nose or honky or cracker or whatever. I was asking a question. I'm having a hard time with your "legal standard" here though. Is that the case here? How did the registration of Washington Redskins even happen in the first place if it's been disparaging from the onset?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just curious, but would an atheist have a claim against the Saint's Fleur-De-Lis?

At what point will "Chief" also be deemed derogatory towards Native Americans?

Why would the fleur de lis be considered derogatory toward atheists?

It's a Christian symbol. Don't mean to go all Dan Brown in here, but....The Fleur-De-Lis Christian symbol with its association with the lily represents purity, and in turn to the Virgin Mary. As the Fleur-De-Lis is composed of three petals and three sepals it also symbolizes the Trinity.

Right. Why doe a christian symbol disparage an atheist? That's my question.

First off, I view the name change thing as mostly a "politically correct" thing, which may be totally wrong - but that's how I felt after Bob Kostas (I think it was) had his rant during an NFL broadcast last year about the R word and that the network would no longer use it going forward. That was well before this most recent news of the trademark being pulled, obviously. My question is how far can you go in the name of being "politically correct"? With that said....

I'm not an atheist, so I can't say first hand, but - I've always felt that the First Amendment's "Freedom of Religion" also means/meant "Freedom from Religion". The Freedom From Religion Foundation, or FFRF, apparently feels the same way. So if I live in or around New Orleans and I'm an atheist (or quite frankly any religion other than Catholic/Christian) why when I look at my local NFL team do I have to see a religious symbol that's not of my religion, or any religious symbol at all? Further, since we're talking about team names here, why does that team name have to be "Saints", a tribute to the Catholic holiday of All Saints Day? I understand that Catholicism is the major religion of the area, but it's by no means the only religion.

Just a thought.

Because the team is not the government. The First Amendment only limits government action. That said, I think the city also has it on street signs and whatnot. You could challenge those under the First Amendment if you wanted. I don't know enough about the Establishment Clause to know what standard they'd apply or how it would turn out.

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The test isn't "is anyone offended?"

To the question posed? Of course it is. You lawyer guys feel free to add whatever adjectives you feel necessary to answer the question in lawyer terms. Guy asked a simple question and I think it's pretty clear what he was getting at. My guess is most atheists wouldn't know what he was talking about in the first place, but that's a different discussion.

Actually the question posed was derogatory, which is close to the correct question- the actual question is whether the trademark consists of "matter ... which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." The answer to that question w/r/t the Fleur de Lis is obviously no, in my opinion.

You changed it to "is anyone offended," which is irrelevant (that's not the legal standard) and also impossible to know. Only the person you're asking about can know if they're offended or not.

awesome....until it is, right?

Well, no. The legal standard is whether the matter may disparage at the time of the registration.

But don't let that stop you from making a preposterous slippery slope argument.

My "argument" (though I really don't see me making one here) isn't any more preposterous than equating redskin with the N word or hook nose or honky or cracker or whatever. I was asking a question. I'm having a hard time with your "legal standard" here though. Is that the case here? How did the registration of Washington Redskins even happen in the first place if it's been disparaging from the onset?

I don't know why you're having a hard time with my "legal standard." That's the legal standard. You can look it up yourself if you want. 15 USC 1052(a).

I don't know exactly what happened when it was registered, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. My barely educated guess is that all trademark petitions are rubber-stamped as long as the matter isn't already trademarked elsewhere and it's up to others to challenge the trademark at the agency. The statute reads like approval is assumed, not the other way around. It says "no trademark shall be refused unless ..."

 

[Doug B]

Lakers offensive to Tusken Raiders

A single file of Bantha tracks leading away from the burned-out Staples Center ...

 

[the moops]

When I am trying to determine whether a word is disparaging to a group of people, I think of peens in his double-wide yelling from his window towards someone and saying "get off my dirt you no good XXXXXXX".

So, to a native american, "get off my dirt you no good redskin". That works.

To a black guy, "get off my dirt you no good nxxxxxx". That works.

To an atheist, "get off my dirt, you no good saint"? Ummmm

 

[matttyl]

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

Again, I look at the Skins name debate as more of a politically correct thing, and have since TV networks stopped using the word last year well before the recent trademark stuff. I feel the trademark drama happening now is just the tactic being used in which to do what some feel is the politically correct thing. I may be totally wrong on that, and if so fine.

Personally I love the Saints and the entire city of New Orleans. I also love the symbol and have no idea if their version of it it trademarked or not. I obviously don't want to see anything changed about it - but the fact remains that their team name is derived from a Catholic holiday and their team symbol, trademarked or not, is a Christian/Catholic symbol. In today's world, could we have a team called the "Christs" and have the cross as their team logo? Would that be PC?

 

[matttyl]

When I am trying to determine whether a word is disparaging to a group of people, I think of peens in his double-wide yelling from his window towards someone and saying "get off my dirt you no good XXXXXXX".

So, to a native american, "get off my dirt you no good redskin". That works.

To a black guy, "get off my dirt you no good nxxxxxx". That works.

To an atheist, "get off my dirt, you no good saint"? Ummmm

Again, not coming at this from a "disparaging" angle, I'm coming at this from a "politically correct" angle, which I think the bigger umbrella that the "disparaging" part falls under.

 

[Doug B]

The test isn't "is anyone offended?"

The test isn't quite that broad, but it's close.

The good ol' sorites paradox. 10 million offended people are a problem. One offended person can be ignored. But no one can draw the line in between.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

Again, I look at the Skins name debate as more of a politically correct thing, and have since TV networks stopped using the word last year well before the recent trademark stuff. I feel the trademark drama happening now is just the tactic being used in which to do what some feel is the politically correct thing. I may be totally wrong on that, and if so fine.

Personally I love the Saints and the entire city of New Orleans. I also love the symbol and have no idea if their version of it it trademarked or not. I obviously don't want to see anything changed about it - but the fact remains that their team name is derived from a Catholic holiday and their team symbol, trademarked or not, is a Christian/Catholic symbol. In today's world, could we have a team called the "Christs" and have the cross as their team logo? Would that be PC?

I don't know what is or isn't "PC." I think that's kind of a meaningless catch phrase, to be honest. Something people use to boil old conservatives' blood. To me, every case is different. Here, Redskins is disparaging, in the opinion of the appeals board and many Native Americans. I don't even know who "Saints" or the Fleur-de-Lis would disparage. So one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

[RUSF18]

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

Again, I look at the Skins name debate as more of a politically correct thing, and have since TV networks stopped using the word last year well before the recent trademark stuff. I feel the trademark drama happening now is just the tactic being used in which to do what some feel is the politically correct thing. I may be totally wrong on that, and if so fine.

Personally I love the Saints and the entire city of New Orleans. I also love the symbol and have no idea if their version of it it trademarked or not. I obviously don't want to see anything changed about it - but the fact remains that their team name is derived from a Catholic holiday and their team symbol, trademarked or not, is a Christian/Catholic symbol. In today's world, could we have a team called the "Christs" and have the cross as their team logo? Would that be PC?

What is making you say that the networks stopped doing that because they are trying to be "PC"? Why do you feel with 100% confidence they didn't do so because they realize it is offensive and don't want to offend. That isn't being PC.

Two prominent sportswriters - Bill Simmons and Peter King - both stopped using the word in their columns. They said they did so because they know it offends people and they don't want to do that.

 

[tom22406]

Since you're a Skins fan Tobias I will ask you this and for the others in the thread that support the team but want the name changed.

How far are you willing to take your stance on the nickname?

Will you continue to go to games,watch them on t.v.,buy merch etc?

My feeling is until Snyder is either forced by the NFL to change it or he feels the financial hit nothing will change.So it's now in the fans lap to let their voices be heard via not supporting them until it does change.

 

[Chaka]

I chose Jewish stereotypes because I'm Jewish so I felt comfortable

And why is it ok for the people who find the word offensive to adopt it as their own? Seems logical that they'd be the last group to want use the word if they really find it offensive.

Do you have a point or is this just another example of white people problems?

It's a question, that apparently, you don't have an answer for.

The answer is that is a stupid point you are trying to make. I know where you are trying to go with this but the only answer is that it's okay because they say it's okay.If it bothers you so much no one is preventing you from going up to a group of young black men and dropping a couple "What's up my ####as?" or "####a please!".

Go for it and Godspeed to you.

It doesn't bother me, I just find it an interesting social dynamic. It isn't logical that a subset of a group that finds a term offensive to adopt that term. And if they did it seems the larger group would take as much if not more offence to it. It not being logical makes it harder to explain so I'm not surprised your answer is just to attack the question.

no the answer is because they are okay with it. Doesn't matter if it fits your logic or not.Accept it and move on.

Just because doesn't really fit for an answer for anything. More avoidance really.

Yes it does. Your ability to apply logic simply cannot process it. Now you can break it down into a contextual explanation about the differences between the usage with an "a" vs "er" at the end but I don't think you would be able to accept that reality.

Does it really hurt or bother you that some people can get away with using the N-word in a certain context but you can't in any context?

 

[roadkill1292]

Let's see how Danny likes it when Fox and CBS won't put the word "Redskins" up on the screen and won't allow their announcers to say it.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

 

[Chaka]

It really seems to bother people when they realize that the times have caught up with their ability to use previously acceptable racial slurs.

Sorry guys it's racist. Change the name, accept it and move on. It is going to happen sooner or later and the longer you continue to fight it the longer you will have remained on the wrong side of history.

 

[Chaka]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

ETA: And please don't encourage tonydead to pretend that his argument is referring to anything other than the N-word.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Since you're a Skins fan Tobias I will ask you this and for the others in the thread that support the team but want the name changed.

How far are you willing to take your stance on the nickname?

Will you continue to go to games,watch them on t.v.,buy merch etc?

My feeling is until Snyder is either forced by the NFL to change it or he feels the financial hit nothing will change.So it's now in the fans lap to let their voices be heard via not supporting them until it does change.

I almost never go to games. Part of it is not wanting to give money to Snyder, and the name thing is part of that, but it's just a small factor. The fact that the stadium experience sucks and is getting suckier while watching football on TV is awesome and getting awesomer obviously a much larger factor.

I also don't buy Skins merchandise, which is a bummer for me. I'm a huge DC sports fan, as you know. I've got my own gear for the other three teams and even more gear for my two small kids, which is great. I'd love to get some stuff for the kids from the local NFL team, but I know pretty much for a fact that 20 years from now the name is gonna be a source of embarrassment, and it's pretty awkward now also, so I don't get it for them.

I watch on TV, but it definitely affects my enthusiasm to a small degree. I was a Skins fan first and foremost growing up, but now they're a distant third and fading fast. Although just like going to the games, it's hard to know how much of that is the name issues and how much of it is other stuff- the owner, the concussion mess, etc.

Like I've said before, my DC sports fandom is why i care so much about this. I don't post in the thread 500 times and argue about it all the time because I think the name is the worst thing in the world. I do it because it affects my ability to enjoy one of my favorite things. I still enjoy it, but not as much as I would if they were the Red Tails or the Red Pandas or the Senators or whatever.

 

[matttyl]

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

Again, I look at the Skins name debate as more of a politically correct thing, and have since TV networks stopped using the word last year well before the recent trademark stuff. I feel the trademark drama happening now is just the tactic being used in which to do what some feel is the politically correct thing. I may be totally wrong on that, and if so fine.

Personally I love the Saints and the entire city of New Orleans. I also love the symbol and have no idea if their version of it it trademarked or not. I obviously don't want to see anything changed about it - but the fact remains that their team name is derived from a Catholic holiday and their team symbol, trademarked or not, is a Christian/Catholic symbol. In today's world, could we have a team called the "Christs" and have the cross as their team logo? Would that be PC?

What is making you say that the networks stopped doing that because they are trying to be "PC"? Why do you feel with 100% confidence they didn't do so because they realize it is offensive and don't want to offend. That isn't being PC.

Two prominent sportswriters - Bill Simmons and Peter King - both stopped using the word in their columns. They said they did so because they know it offends people and they don't want to do that.

Yes, not offending people with certain terms is politically correct/political correctness. Here's the definition (just read what I underlined):

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes"). These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and disability.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

Why would they be Native Americans - seems offensive, given that they were here before "America"

Also seems offensive to lump together a group of people who were not really part of a single civilization.

 

[eoMMan]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.ETA: And please don't encourage tonydead to pretend that his argument is referring to anything other than the N-word.

What's your opinion on the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves? Should they both have to change too?

 

[matttyl]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

Why would they be Native Americans - seems offensive, given that they were here before "America"

Also seems offensive to lump together a group of people who were not really part of a single civilization.

Good posting. Again, how far do we go with our "political correctness"?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Has there been a more recent poll since the one done in 2004 showing 90% of native Americans were not bothered by the name? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

 

[Chaka]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.ETA: And please don't encourage tonydead to pretend that his argument is referring to anything other than the N-word.

What's your opinion on the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves? Should they both have to change too?

Don't forget the KC Chiefs.

Personally I think Chief Wahoo needs a serious makeover but I recognize that my opinion on the issue of team names is really irrelevant. They don't sound derogatory at first blush but if a solid argument can be made that they are truly offensive terms, like in Washington, then I would have no problem with a name change.

The one that I do disagree with is Warriors. I know some Native American tribes make a stink about using that as team name and I find that bothersome as I don't see how Native Americans can make any sort of legitimate claim on the word warrior. Seems to me it is a term that independent from race.

 

[Chaka]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

Why would they be Native Americans - seems offensive, given that they were here before "America"

Also seems offensive to lump together a group of people who were not really part of a single civilization.

Good posting. Again, how far do we go with our "political correctness"?

Are you in favor of bringing back the n-word in common usage?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Has there been a more recent poll since the one done in 2004 showing 90% of native Americans were not bothered by the name? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

This recent one found 67% of Native Americans said the name was offensive.

It has it's flaws, like the 2004 one. Answer is probably somewhere in between. Where is anyone's guess. I'd probably lean more towards the more recent one, just because it's recent and attitudes and awareness obviously change over time.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.ETA: And please don't encourage tonydead to pretend that his argument is referring to anything other than the N-word.

What's your opinion on the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves? Should they both have to change too?

Don't forget the KC Chiefs.

Personally I think Chief Wahoo needs a serious makeover but I recognize that my opinion on the issue of team names is really irrelevant. They don't sound derogatory at first blush but if a solid argument can be made that they are truly offensive terms, like in Washington, then I would have no problem with a name change.

The one that I do disagree with is Warriors. I know some Native American tribes make a stink about using that as team name and I find that bothersome as I don't see how Native Americans can make any sort of legitimate claim on the word warrior. Seems to me it is a term that independent from race.

Right up until the time you use an image/logo of a member of the Cherokee Nation.

 

[the moops]

Has there been a more recent poll since the one done in 2004 showing 90% of native Americans were not bothered by the name? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

No, there has not been a single poll taken in the past 10 years

 

[The Commish]

The test isn't "is anyone offended?"

To the question posed? Of course it is. You lawyer guys feel free to add whatever adjectives you feel necessary to answer the question in lawyer terms. Guy asked a simple question and I think it's pretty clear what he was getting at. My guess is most atheists wouldn't know what he was talking about in the first place, but that's a different discussion.

Actually the question posed was derogatory, which is close to the correct question- the actual question is whether the trademark consists of "matter ... which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." The answer to that question w/r/t the Fleur de Lis is obviously no, in my opinion.

You changed it to "is anyone offended," which is irrelevant (that's not the legal standard) and also impossible to know. Only the person you're asking about can know if they're offended or not.

awesome....until it is, right?

Well, no. The legal standard is whether the matter may disparage at the time of the registration.

But don't let that stop you from making a preposterous slippery slope argument.

My "argument" (though I really don't see me making one here) isn't any more preposterous than equating redskin with the N word or hook nose or honky or cracker or whatever. I was asking a question. I'm having a hard time with your "legal standard" here though. Is that the case here? How did the registration of Washington Redskins even happen in the first place if it's been disparaging from the onset?

I don't know why you're having a hard time with my "legal standard." That's the legal standard. You can look it up yourself if you want. 15 USC 1052(a).

I don't know exactly what happened when it was registered, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. My barely educated guess is that all trademark petitions are rubber-stamped as long as the matter isn't already trademarked elsewhere and it's up to others to challenge the trademark at the agency. The statute reads like approval is assumed, not the other way around. It says "no trademark shall be refused unless ..."

so then what I said above is correct. "until it is"...no? Why is that absurd? If it's rubber stamped then it's ok until someone says it's not

 

[matttyl]

When I am trying to determine whether a word is disparaging to a group of people, I think of peens in his double-wide yelling from his window towards someone and saying "get off my dirt you no good XXXXXXX".

So, to a native american, "get off my dirt you no good redskin". That works.

To a black guy, "get off my dirt you no good nxxxxxx". That works.

To an atheist, "get off my dirt, you no good saint"? Ummmm

And if we're using this as our guide, I'd have to think that saying "get off my dirt Chief" may qualify. You don't even need the "no good" part.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Why do teams feel the need to have a Nickname at all?

Why can't it simply be that Washington plays Baltimore?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The other reason I'd lean more towards the 67% number than the 10% number is the large number of tribes and organizations that are opposed to the name. It's hard to imagine so many of them would take a position shared by only a small minority of the Native American population.

 

[matttyl]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

Why would they be Native Americans - seems offensive, given that they were here before "America"

Also seems offensive to lump together a group of people who were not really part of a single civilization.

Good posting. Again, how far do we go with our "political correctness"?

Are you in favor of bringing back the n-word in common usage?

Apparently is already is in a part of African-American culture, as the R-word is in a part of Native American culture (specifically the high school team that uses the name on an Indian reservation).

 

[Chaka]

I do want to clarify that I am totally on board with George Carlin's philosophy on language. They're just words and in a vacuum they are neither offensive or agreeable, they are only granted those abilities by the people who hear them. On the surface it makes so much sense to adopt this way of thinking and take away the power of words to evoke emotion. I totally get that. However if we could get the whole country (world?) to climb on board with that philosophy...well I think the world would be a significantly less interesting place to live because words would then lose their ability to elicit any type of emotion whatsoever.

 

[Chaka]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

Why would they be Native Americans - seems offensive, given that they were here before "America"

Also seems offensive to lump together a group of people who were not really part of a single civilization.

Good posting. Again, how far do we go with our "political correctness"?

Are you in favor of bringing back the n-word in common usage?

Apparently is already is in a part of African-American culture, as the R-word is in a part of Native American culture (specifically the high school team that uses the name on an Indian reservation).

The fact that some African Americans are comfortable with a contextual usage of the n-word (or the R-word with Native Americans) is not the same as common usage and I am pretty sure you know that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.ETA: And please don't encourage tonydead to pretend that his argument is referring to anything other than the N-word.

What's your opinion on the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves? Should they both have to change too?

Indians, Braves, and Chiefs aren't slurs.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The test isn't "is anyone offended?"

To the question posed? Of course it is. You lawyer guys feel free to add whatever adjectives you feel necessary to answer the question in lawyer terms. Guy asked a simple question and I think it's pretty clear what he was getting at. My guess is most atheists wouldn't know what he was talking about in the first place, but that's a different discussion.

Actually the question posed was derogatory, which is close to the correct question- the actual question is whether the trademark consists of "matter ... which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." The answer to that question w/r/t the Fleur de Lis is obviously no, in my opinion.

You changed it to "is anyone offended," which is irrelevant (that's not the legal standard) and also impossible to know. Only the person you're asking about can know if they're offended or not.

awesome....until it is, right?

Well, no. The legal standard is whether the matter may disparage at the time of the registration.

But don't let that stop you from making a preposterous slippery slope argument.

My "argument" (though I really don't see me making one here) isn't any more preposterous than equating redskin with the N word or hook nose or honky or cracker or whatever. I was asking a question. I'm having a hard time with your "legal standard" here though. Is that the case here? How did the registration of Washington Redskins even happen in the first place if it's been disparaging from the onset?

I don't know why you're having a hard time with my "legal standard." That's the legal standard. You can look it up yourself if you want. 15 USC 1052(a).

I don't know exactly what happened when it was registered, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. My barely educated guess is that all trademark petitions are rubber-stamped as long as the matter isn't already trademarked elsewhere and it's up to others to challenge the trademark at the agency. The statute reads like approval is assumed, not the other way around. It says "no trademark shall be refused unless ..."

so then what I said above is correct. "until it is"...no? Why is that absurd? If it's rubber stamped then it's ok until someone says it's not

Sure, I guess. Although I said no in my opinion. Your post suggested my opinion was gonna change on the disparaging nature of the Fleur-De-Lis. It won't.

No offense, but I'm just gonna converse with the people who are actually trying to have a point and make a lick of sense from here on out. Sorry. Time constraints and all.

 

[Parrothead]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.ETA: And please don't encourage tonydead to pretend that his argument is referring to anything other than the N-word.

What's your opinion on the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves? Should they both have to change too?

Indians, Braves, and Chiefs aren't slurs.

How about "those kids were running around like a bunch of Indians in the restaurant.." offensive?

 

[The Commish]

The test isn't "is anyone offended?"

To the question posed? Of course it is. You lawyer guys feel free to add whatever adjectives you feel necessary to answer the question in lawyer terms. Guy asked a simple question and I think it's pretty clear what he was getting at. My guess is most atheists wouldn't know what he was talking about in the first place, but that's a different discussion.

Actually the question posed was derogatory, which is close to the correct question- the actual question is whether the trademark consists of "matter ... which may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." The answer to that question w/r/t the Fleur de Lis is obviously no, in my opinion.

You changed it to "is anyone offended," which is irrelevant (that's not the legal standard) and also impossible to know. Only the person you're asking about can know if they're offended or not.

awesome....until it is, right?

Well, no. The legal standard is whether the matter may disparage at the time of the registration.

But don't let that stop you from making a preposterous slippery slope argument.

My "argument" (though I really don't see me making one here) isn't any more preposterous than equating redskin with the N word or hook nose or honky or cracker or whatever. I was asking a question. I'm having a hard time with your "legal standard" here though. Is that the case here? How did the registration of Washington Redskins even happen in the first place if it's been disparaging from the onset?

I don't know why you're having a hard time with my "legal standard." That's the legal standard. You can look it up yourself if you want. 15 USC 1052(a).

I don't know exactly what happened when it was registered, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. My barely educated guess is that all trademark petitions are rubber-stamped as long as the matter isn't already trademarked elsewhere and it's up to others to challenge the trademark at the agency. The statute reads like approval is assumed, not the other way around. It says "no trademark shall be refused unless ..."

so then what I said above is correct. "until it is"...no? Why is that absurd? If it's rubber stamped then it's ok until someone says it's not

Sure, I guess.

No offense, but I'm just gonna converse with the people who are actually trying to have a point and make a lick of sense from here on out. Sorry. Time constraints and all.

Self awareness isn't a strong suite of yours is it? Enjoy.

 

[tom22406]

Since you're a Skins fan Tobias I will ask you this and for the others in the thread that support the team but want the name changed.

How far are you willing to take your stance on the nickname?

Will you continue to go to games,watch them on t.v.,buy merch etc?

My feeling is until Snyder is either forced by the NFL to change it or he feels the financial hit nothing will change.So it's now in the fans lap to let their voices be heard via not supporting them until it does change.

I almost never go to games. Part of it is not wanting to give money to Snyder, and the name thing is part of that, but it's just a small factor. The fact that the stadium experience sucks and is getting suckier while watching football on TV is awesome and getting awesomer obviously a much larger factor.

I also don't buy Skins merchandise, which is a bummer for me. I'm a huge DC sports fan, as you know. I've got my own gear for the other three teams and even more gear for my two small kids, which is great. I'd love to get some stuff for the kids from the local NFL team, but I know pretty much for a fact that 20 years from now the name is gonna be a source of embarrassment, and it's pretty awkward now also, so I don't get it for them.

I watch on TV, but it definitely affects my enthusiasm to a small degree. I was a Skins fan first and foremost growing up, but now they're a distant third and fading fast. Although just like going to the games, it's hard to know how much of that is the name issues and how much of it is other stuff- the owner, the concussion mess, etc.

Like I've said before, my DC sports fandom is why i care so much about this. I don't post in the thread 500 times and argue about it all the time because I think the name is the worst thing in the world. I do it because it affects my ability to enjoy one of my favorite things. I still enjoy it, but not as much as I would if they were the Red Tails or the Red Pandas or the Senators or whatever.

So if a good number of Skins fans feel the same way and actually stay away from the product(which I think is a long ways away)I don't see Snyder doing this on his own and couple that will his NEVER statement and it's almost a lock he goes down swinging.

Goodell,however,will fold to the pressure at some point so it's just a matter of how long IMO.

ETA:Thanks for the reply.I'm not a Skins fan but I deal with a bunch of them in my friends circle and most(if not all)feel the opposite.

 

[matttyl]

So - Reskinna is acceptable, but Reskinner cannot be used?

I don't know, ask some Native Americans and get back to us with your results.

Why would they be Native Americans - seems offensive, given that they were here before "America"

Also seems offensive to lump together a group of people who were not really part of a single civilization.

Good posting. Again, how far do we go with our "political correctness"?

Are you in favor of bringing back the n-word in common usage?

Apparently is already is in a part of African-American culture, as the R-word is in a part of Native American culture (specifically the high school team that uses the name on an Indian reservation).

The fact that some African Americans are comfortable with a contextual usage of the n-word (or the R-word with Native Americans) is not the same as common usage and I am pretty sure you know that.

I don't see high schools in predominately black neighborhoods naming their sports team with the N-word and go around playing other schools using the name with pride. I'm sure you know that.

In fact, there are 3 high schools with high Native American populations which use the name, and apparently do so proudly.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Since you're a Skins fan Tobias I will ask you this and for the others in the thread that support the team but want the name changed.

How far are you willing to take your stance on the nickname?

Will you continue to go to games,watch them on t.v.,buy merch etc?

My feeling is until Snyder is either forced by the NFL to change it or he feels the financial hit nothing will change.So it's now in the fans lap to let their voices be heard via not supporting them until it does change.

I almost never go to games. Part of it is not wanting to give money to Snyder, and the name thing is part of that, but it's just a small factor. The fact that the stadium experience sucks and is getting suckier while watching football on TV is awesome and getting awesomer obviously a much larger factor.

I also don't buy Skins merchandise, which is a bummer for me. I'm a huge DC sports fan, as you know. I've got my own gear for the other three teams and even more gear for my two small kids, which is great. I'd love to get some stuff for the kids from the local NFL team, but I know pretty much for a fact that 20 years from now the name is gonna be a source of embarrassment, and it's pretty awkward now also, so I don't get it for them.

I watch on TV, but it definitely affects my enthusiasm to a small degree. I was a Skins fan first and foremost growing up, but now they're a distant third and fading fast. Although just like going to the games, it's hard to know how much of that is the name issues and how much of it is other stuff- the owner, the concussion mess, etc.

Like I've said before, my DC sports fandom is why i care so much about this. I don't post in the thread 500 times and argue about it all the time because I think the name is the worst thing in the world. I do it because it affects my ability to enjoy one of my favorite things. I still enjoy it, but not as much as I would if they were the Red Tails or the Red Pandas or the Senators or whatever.

So if a good number of Skins fans feel the same way and actually stay away from the product(which I think is a long ways away)I don't see Snyder doing this on his own and couple that will his NEVER statement and it's almost a lock he goes down swinging.

Goodell,however,will fold to the pressure at some point so it's just a matter of how long IMO.

ETA:Thanks for the reply.I'm not a Skins fan but I deal with a bunch of them in my friends circle and most(if not all)feel the opposite.

Yeah I don't think there are many Skins fans who feel the way I do about the name. If there were they would have changed it already probably. They definitely wouldn't be so defiant about it.

I think you're right, the change isn't gonna come from the fan base. It's gonna come from outside. My guess is the final nail in the coffin will be sponsors getting nervous or even starting to pull out. The trademark stuff would also do it, but the decision won't be final for a couple of years and I think they'll change it before that.

 

[the moops]

In fact, there are 3 high schools with high Native American populations which use the name, and apparently do so proudly.

3 schools! Holy ####!

If you read up about some of those schools, you will see there is disparity amongst the populations as to whether in fact it is a proud word.

 

[RUSF18]

Totally irrelevant to the Skins name debate, of course.

Again, I look at the Skins name debate as more of a politically correct thing, and have since TV networks stopped using the word last year well before the recent trademark stuff. I feel the trademark drama happening now is just the tactic being used in which to do what some feel is the politically correct thing. I may be totally wrong on that, and if so fine.

Personally I love the Saints and the entire city of New Orleans. I also love the symbol and have no idea if their version of it it trademarked or not. I obviously don't want to see anything changed about it - but the fact remains that their team name is derived from a Catholic holiday and their team symbol, trademarked or not, is a Christian/Catholic symbol. In today's world, could we have a team called the "Christs" and have the cross as their team logo? Would that be PC?

What is making you say that the networks stopped doing that because they are trying to be "PC"? Why do you feel with 100% confidence they didn't do so because they realize it is offensive and don't want to offend. That isn't being PC.

Two prominent sportswriters - Bill Simmons and Peter King - both stopped using the word in their columns. They said they did so because they know it offends people and they don't want to do that.

Yes, not offending people with certain terms is politically correct/political correctness. Here's the definition (just read what I underlined):

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes"). These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and disability.

I bolded/enlarged the piece you're off on. There isn't any form of discrimination going on here.

 

[roadkill1292]

Why do teams feel the need to have a Nickname at all?

Why can't it simply be that Washington plays Baltimore?

I refer to that game as Snyder Football Inc. vs Bisciotti Football Corp.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Has there been a more recent poll since the one done in 2004 showing 90% of native Americans were not bothered by the name? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

No, there has not been a single poll taken in the past 10 years

That's just not true.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.129698-Poll-Are-people-over-sensitive?page=2

 

[matttyl]

In fact, there are 3 high schools with high Native American populations which use the name, and apparently do so proudly.

3 schools! Holy ####!

If you read up about some of those schools, you will see there is disparity amongst the populations as to whether in fact it is a proud word.

I think you missed my point, there are 3 schools which are each comprised of high Native American populations. There are many more nationwide that use the name, but 3 specifically which are in high Native American populations. I have no idea how many of our country's high schools are in "high Native American" populations, but it can't be that many - and I think that having 3 of those all using the name is relevant here. If you ask the principals/coaches/superintendents of those schools (as has been done in various newspaper articles and such), they do find pride in the word.

Yes, other schools which aren't of high Native American populations are having disparity among them about the word, and some are changing their name.