Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Please join me in eliminating this word from the Shark Pool/Board


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Adso said:

the owner/own terms seem innocuous and this thread could seem like exaggerated PC-ness... but if you're not in the demographic that these terms might offend, maybe take a second and try to imagine if it would if you were. 

This is the crux. Who gets to make the call. I would say it is the person "in the demographic". Lots of people who aren't Native American said Redskins wasn't offensive. Are they in a position to make that call? Should they have a say?Does it matter if they think a change  is silly, PC, unnecessary? Probably not.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I appreciate the sentiment and understand the concern, even though in this case I don't necessarily agree and actually don't feel that it's painfully obvious why we shouldn't use Owner/Own in this con

I myself prefer the term "Grand Overlord".

Greetings everyone,  I have been sitting on this for a while now and I even am guilty of using this word and didn't realize how offensive it likely is until more recently in the last couple years

I feel saddened at where our country and society is heading towards and what we have become

We won't be able to communicate at all without fear of offending someone.   I usually say I have instead of I own, just bc it sounds better grammatically speaking.   I won't take offense either when someone says I own something either.    Chances are, they own it bc they earned it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cloppbeast said:

'The rojo owner in my league...' is more succinct than 'The guy in my league who rosters rojo.. '. The plural is worse. 'rojo owners are worried...' vs. 'people who roster rojo are worried...'

I'm inclined to side with better literary phrasing. But I do like the idea to mix things up a bit; so I will be using it. Replacement tho, maybe not.

The Rojo Roosterer is more euphonious however

-QG

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

This is the crux. Who gets to make the call. I would say it is the person "in the demographic". Lots of people who aren't Native American said Redskins wasn't offensive. Are they in a position to make that call? Should they have a say?Does it matter if they think a change  is silly, PC, unnecessary? Probably not.

Lots of people who ARE native americans said Redskins wasn't Offensive either. But their voice was ignored. Same thing is happening with the Cleveland Indians name. It's white people forcing these changes out of either misguided guilt or a veiled attempt to eliminate native culture from the masses. There's already been proposals to change the names of towns, cities, even states because of supposed "cultural appropriation" of native american names. Eventually there will be no evidence of native american culture at all if the PC brigade is allowed to continue rewritingnour history.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Insein said:

Lots of people who ARE native americans said Redskins wasn't Offensive either. But their voice was ignored.  But their voice was ignored. Same thing is happening with the Cleveland Indians name. It's white people forcing these changes out of either misguided guilt or a veiled attempt to eliminate native culture from the masses

This is still consistent with my point even taken from this other side.  I'm saying it's not for people outside the affected class to decide how the affected class should feel. A "non-Native American" should not decide whether a Native American should or should not be offended.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

This is still consistent with my point even taken from this other side.  I'm saying it's not for people outside the affected class to decide how the affected class should feel.

Yes. And yet people outside of the affected class (white people) are often the instigators of these changes.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

 

I have a lot of respect for both of you, will understand and it's a personal choice if you want to use the word or not. I'm trying to bring awareness to it, please don't be upset with me, I welcome open discussion and other's POV. No one should have issues with you speaking out either. You make good points. 

MOP - Curious to see where you stand on using the word "own" in other areas.  Is it OK for Snyder to "own" the Football Team?  Is it OK for JB to "own" FBGS?  Is it OK for me to "own" shares of GM?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DropKick said:

Probably should lose the phrases "buy low" and "sell high"... both connote ownership.

"Stud" is another problem word... I know its meant as a compliment.  However, on some levels, this can be considered a comparison to an animal.

Poppycock!

Buy and sell is much more offensive than own.  We could flush every bit of ff jargon away or we grasp that we don't literally own or buy/sell of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

MOP - Curious to see where you stand on using the word "own" in other areas.  Is it OK for Snyder to "own" the Football Team? 

FWIW, here is a survey from last year regarding the NBA.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Ogo_wEQ8fhSH9b1Pxzs4hA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU1MC4wNjIxMTE4MDEyNDIz/https://media-mbst-pub-ue1.s3.amazonaws.com/creatr-uploaded-images/2019-06/a6ad7e00-99bc-11e9-bbaf-b0a1ee862bc2

(And that's a bad example, because I think most people don't think it is okay for Synder to own the team  ;)   )

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insein said:

Lots of people who ARE native americans said Redskins wasn't Offensive either. But their voice was ignored. Same thing is happening with the Cleveland Indians name. It's white people forcing these changes out of either misguided guilt or a veiled attempt to eliminate native culture from the masses. There's already been proposals to change the names of towns, cities, even states because of supposed "cultural appropriation" of native american names. Eventually there will be no evidence of native american culture at all if the PC brigade is allowed to continue rewritingnour history.

If they start changing the cities named after native Americans, then the whole state of Oklahoma, with the exceptions of Norman, Okla, goes away. I guess unless there is some nerdy dude on a reservation somewhere named Norman who is offended🤔

In all seriousness though, I would think it would be a sense of pride to have towns named after your heritage. But then again the over sensitivity  in this country is mind boggling.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, domvin said:

I feel saddened at where our country and society is heading towards and what we have become

We won't be able to communicate at all without fear of offending someone.   I usually say I have instead of I own, just bc it sounds better grammatically speaking.   I won't take offense either when someone says I own something either.    Chances are, they own it bc they earned it.

This is important.

There was a comment earlier about putting yourself in the shoes of the relevant demographics. I guess I should only speak for myself, but why the #### would I care? I don’t have some inter generational form of PTSD; such that I receive a flash of pain every time I am reminded that my ancestors were slaves. We don’t need to scrub language and culture of any such reminders, no matter how trivial - like they’re land mines or something.

Honesty, it’s the well intentioned, over-the-top liberals that make me feel awkward these days; much more so than cops or conservatives or whomever else it’s supposed to be. It’s hard to have a human connection with someone obsessed with the idea that you’re a victim. 

I’m just one guy and I certainly don’t speak for an entire race of people, but that’s my experience. 

Edited by Concept Coop
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DropKick said:

It's tacky because its an awkward phrase.  However, we "buy", "sell" and "trade" and collectively treat these guys like commodities.  The lexicon of fantasy football is full of such jargon.  Operative word is "fantasy".  We know we don't literally own these players any more than a hotel on Boardwalk.

Across my dynasty leagues I own 5 shares of Player X stock.  I do not own Player X.

The names of the stocks I own include Terry McLaurin stock, Matthew Stafford stock, and Travis Kelce stock.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great I'm an old dog who's been participating in fantasy football for 30 years and have used the term owner forever in the context of owning shares of a specific player for fake football purposes.  Never once occurred to me that some people make the giant contextual leap of the true meaning of the word own.  Now I'm going to second guess everyone of my shark pool posts now in fear I'll be offending someone.  Not that it matters much but it's making me second guess participating on social media, message boards and the like.  They've become filled with trolls and the perpetually offended.  We're in such weird times right now. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do REAL football GMs say they "own" their players? If someone can find an example of this I'll understand the argument that some on this board have made about the game being a fantasy. If in your fantasy, you use language that actual GMs and team owners don't use due to inaccuracy or because it is offensive, your fantasy isn't relevant to Fantasy Football. We are pretending to be general managers, trading and signing contracts. Not buying people.

Imagine if the standard was saying "I am [X Player's] master"; sure, you can fantasize your own universe where that makes sense, but when the direct comparison to your role on your teams is to the GMs of actual football teams, you should use accurate language if you want to REALLY live up the fantasy element.

Besides, you could just as easily say you "have" a player. All the fun and brevity, plus with bonus accuracy and minus any negative connotations. In cases where you lose brevity, suck it up. A ton of you just spent 3-5 minutes typing out a response to an internet post, I'm pretty sure you aren't so busy that adding an extra couple words to your sentence about the dude who has RoJo in your league.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Absolutely Nothing said:

Do REAL football GMs say they "own" their players? If someone can find an example of this I'll understand the argument that some on this board have made about the game being a fantasy. If in your fantasy, you use language that actual GMs and team owners don't use due to inaccuracy or because it is offensive, your fantasy isn't relevant to Fantasy Football. We are pretending to be general managers, trading and signing contracts. Not buying people.

Imagine if the standard was saying "I am [X Player's] master"; sure, you can fantasize your own universe where that makes sense, but when the direct comparison to your role on your teams is to the GMs of actual football teams, you should use accurate language if you want to REALLY live up the fantasy element.

Besides, you could just as easily say you "have" a player. All the fun and brevity, plus with bonus accuracy and minus any negative connotations. In cases where you lose brevity, suck it up. A ton of you just spent 3-5 minutes typing out a response to an internet post, I'm pretty sure you aren't so busy that adding an extra couple words to your sentence about the dude who has RoJo in your league.

It's just not necessary.  I hope people can differentiate the meaning between what people say regarding a fantasy football league and slavery.  The purpose of words is to communicate and with that comes the necessity to understand the context of usage.  This is an attempt to force some unnecessary negative leap to a very obvious innocent statement.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Absolutely Nothing said:

Besides, you could just as easily say you "have" a player. All the fun and brevity, plus with bonus accuracy and minus any negative connotations. In cases where you lose brevity, suck it up. A ton of you just spent 3-5 minutes typing out a response to an internet post, I'm pretty sure you aren't so busy that adding an extra couple words to your sentence about the dude who has RoJo in your league.

More likely you can suck it up if you're offended by it because I can type or write what I want.

(That took me 30 seconds)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DropKick said:

It's tacky because its an awkward phrase.  However, we "buy", "sell" and "trade" and collectively treat these guys like commodities.  The lexicon of fantasy football is full of such jargon.  Operative word is "fantasy".  We know we don't literally own these players any more than a hotel on Boardwalk.

If you don't like own you really should stop using these words as well.  They imply the players that are currently situated on our rosters are as much of a commodity as the word own. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Absolutely Nothing said:

Besides, you could just as easily say you "have" a player. All the fun and brevity, plus with bonus accuracy and minus any negative connotations. In cases where you lose brevity, suck it up. A ton of you just spent 3-5 minutes typing out a response to an internet post, I'm pretty sure you aren't so busy that adding an extra couple words to your sentence about the dude who has RoJo in your league.

have

/hav,həv,(ə)v/

verb

1. possess, own, or hold.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Absolutely Nothing said:

Do REAL football GMs say they "own" their players? If someone can find an example of this I'll understand the argument that some on this board have made about the game being a fantasy. If in your fantasy, you use language that actual GMs and team owners don't use due to inaccuracy or because it is offensive, your fantasy isn't relevant to Fantasy Football. We are pretending to be general managers, trading and signing contracts. Not buying people.

Imagine if the standard was saying "I am [X Player's] master"; sure, you can fantasize your own universe where that makes sense, but when the direct comparison to your role on your teams is to the GMs of actual football teams, you should use accurate language if you want to REALLY live up the fantasy element.

Besides, you could just as easily say you "have" a player. All the fun and brevity, plus with bonus accuracy and minus any negative connotations. In cases where you lose brevity, suck it up. A ton of you just spent 3-5 minutes typing out a response to an internet post, I'm pretty sure you aren't so busy that adding an extra couple words to your sentence about the dude who has RoJo in your league.

Not but they don't say they are buy or selling players either.  It's all a matter of context and in Fantasy Football all of these terms, own ,buy, sell refer to the stats of said player, nothing more.  I may stop using the term own in this context but the entire phraseology around fantasy football should be reexamined then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Concept Coop said:

have

/hav,həv,(ə)v/

verb

1. possess, own, or hold.

Hold is an intersting one. 'What are Tyreek holders doing with him this off season?'

Problem there, 'buy, sell, hold' is already common nomenclature. 

Edited by cloppbeast
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zed2283 said:

I hope MoP isn't in any auction leagues.

I remember a couple years ago when ESPN did 24 hours of fantasy football one of the segments they did was an auction draft.  They got all kinds of backlash from this as it being equated to slave auctions.  It was quite ridiculous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cloppbeast said:

Hold is an intersting one. 'What are Tyreek holders doing with him this off season?'

Problem is 'buy, sell, hold' is already common nomenclature. 

“Hold” has plenty of negative connotations as well, assuming you’re looking for them. If we follow this argument all the way, the structure of language itself is offensive. 

/hōld/

Verb

1. grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.

2. keep or detain (someone).

Edited by Concept Coop
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gally said:

I remember a couple years ago when ESPN did 24 hours of fantasy football one of the segments they did was an auction draft.  They got all kinds of backlash from this as it being equated to slave auctions.  It was quite ridiculous.  

I love how an auction fantasy football draft is 'offensive', but teams literally trading players back and forth against their will is no big deal. 

But at least the team gms dont say they own the player.

Edited by cloppbeast
Link to post
Share on other sites

I typed out a long thoughtful response to this last night, then decided it just wasn't worth it. Bottom line: if you aren't comfortable with the term, don't use it. I have a person of color in my league & he uses the term "owner", because like everywhere in life, context matters. 

This question came up years ago because Shaun King wrote a piece about "auction drafts" and how they're somehow analogous to slave auctions. Which completely disregards the fact that people of color play FF, white people play actual RL NFL football, and most important of all, no one who plays FF comes away from a draft believing they actually purchased & subsequently literally own another human being because they "paid" fictitious $ at a FF draft. 

To each their own. I won't tell anyone what to be offended by, and I appreciate the intentions behind the OP - I'm sure MoP meant well and I actually very much appreciate the progressive nature of this topic. That said, I find the term benign in the context of FF.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Gally said:

I remember a couple years ago when ESPN did 24 hours of fantasy football one of the segments they did was an auction draft.  They got all kinds of backlash from this as it being equated to slave auctions.  It was quite ridiculous.  

Shaun King was the one who wrote the piece. Since then his credibility has taken several hits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"GM" is offensive to me, because the word general reminds me that the Confederate Army had generals.  Thus I only refer to myself as my fantasy team's supporter, proponent, or advocate.  The atmosphere in the roster management screen has improved tremendously.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I typed out a long thoughtful response to this last night, then decided it just wasn't worth it. Bottom line: if you aren't comfortable with the term, don't use it. I have a person of color in my league & he uses the term "owner", because like everywhere in life, context matters. 

This question came up years ago because Shaun King wrote a piece about "auction drafts" and how they're somehow analogous to slave auctions. Which completely disregards the fact that people of color play FF, white people play actual RL NFL football, and most important of all, no one who plays FF comes away from a draft believing they actually purchased & subsequently literally own another human being because they "paid" fictitious $ at a FF draft. 

To each their own. I won't tell anyone what to be offended by, and I appreciate the intentions behind the OP - I'm sure MoP meant well and I actually very much appreciate the progressive nature of this topic. That said, I find the term benign in the context of FF.

 

I'm not going to read through this thread but this reflects my thoughts as well. 

This situation is *not* analogous to the slave trade. It just isn't. 

Words can be twisted any number of ways. I am trained as a scientist. Words like "manipulate", "negative", "trend", and many others, have certain scientific mathematic definitions that are unambiguous, but when used loosely in common speech, can be perverted and twisted. 

For example, if you have ever baked a cake and did a conversion from say teaspoons to tablespoons, you have "manipulated" data. Doesn't mean it is a bad thing. But if you hear someone say, "he manipulated data", most people will automatically assume it is bad.  

"Owning" an asset in a FF portfolio that happens to have a name and is a real human, is benign and independent from moral or ethical concerns, just as converting from TSP to TBS when you bake a cake. 

It isn't actually the fault of the "users" of these terms that others misunderstand and misattribute their meaning(s). 

I appreciate the effort to strive to be better, but this is chasing our tail based on a false premise. Checking out.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't understand "taco."  Tacos are good.  What am I missing here?

It’s not about tacos (the delicious Mexican tortilla-based meat food adored by all the peoples of the world but especially stoners) but rather a reference to the character “Taco” in the show “The League”. Taco wasn’t an idiot, he was more of an idiot savant, since the stupid stuff he did always worked out for him.

it’s not a Reddit thing, it’s a TV show reference that is in no way derogatory towards Mexicans or Latin Americans. We all have or have had a “Taco” in our league at one time or another. The dude who does literally no research, buys a mag on the way to the draft, pick 5 guys that are hurt & wins a LCG that year through no skill of their own. That’s the basis of the “Taco” character on the show.  Who, it should be noted, is a white stoner dude. 

I believe the person you quoted didn’t understand the reference & made an incorrect assumption. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

why do posters need to identify in any way that they have a particular player on their ff team?

does that make your opinion more important?

also:  "i'm starting player X, my other options are Y and Z" seems fairly straight forward?

it doesn't seem necessary to identify "ownership", but it's possible i'm missing something?

Edited by amnesiac
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the term “bell cow“ ok?

Is it ok to call a ref a “zebra”?

can we still call a football a “pig skin”?

is the Vikings mascot offensive to people of Scandinavian descent?

should people that work in the steel industry be offended by “Steelers”?

All questions have been asked for a friend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, amnesiac said:

why do posters need to identify in any way that they have a particular player on their ff team?

does that make your opinion more important?

also:  "i'm starting player X, my other options are Y and Z" seems fairly straight forward?

it doesn't seem necessary to identify "ownership", but it's possible i'm missing something?

It comes up from time to time - people discussing a player, person 1 may assert bias to person 2, person 2 indignantly responds that they “don’t own that player anywhere and how dare you, sir or madame” or some such.

It comes up more when discussing dynasty leagues where players may be under contract for a certain amount of time or for certain conditions (x picks or $x dollar amount)

Like the term itself, it’s all about context. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Max55 said:

Is the term “bell cow“ ok?

Is it ok to call a ref a “zebra”?

can we still call a football a “pig skin”?

is the Vikings mascot offensive to people of Scandinavian descent?

should people that work in the steel industry be offended by “Steelers”?

All questions have been asked for a friend. 

Absolutely no more communication of any kind. Can't even wave hello anymore. No nodding. Just move along with your business.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bmsarvis said:

I can’t believe I’m seeing tbh. All we own are stats....  to correlate this with slave owners or any aspect of is ridiculous imo

Welcome to the last 5 years of society.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Insein said:

Welcome to the last 5 years of society.

In general, I’m happy to see thoughtful people engaging in respectful discussion about sensitive issues of race in America. We’re long overdue for such conversations and it’s fair to ask the questions about what should and should not be acceptable. It shows heretofore unrealized potential to become better people & have a more thoughtful society.

Specifically to this subject, it can definitely seem too PC or over the top or heavy-handed.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the conversation, nor should it be a reason to hate all political correctness.

The balance is in sticking to one question at a time without making sweeping generalizations like, “well we just can’t have any comedians any more if I can’t say the N word when telling a racist joke”. Not saying you, specifically did this, but I see that line of reasoning a lot. That’s a slippery slope & should be avoided. 

This topic is a bit of an extreme example - I’ll note Shaun King didn’t write his article about fantasy hockey or fantasy golf, both of which use auction formats as well. But he’s somewhat known as a rabble rouser (and a liar and harasser of women) so I expect over the top PC from him because it gives him something to write about & get attention for. 

The rest of us should be able to entertain a mature discussion about whether or not he’s right. That doesn’t mean cancel culture is taking away our magical foozeball. ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

In general, I’m happy to see thoughtful people engaging in respectful discussion about sensitive issues of race in America. We’re long overdue for such conversations and it’s fair to ask the questions about what should and should not be acceptable. It shows heretofore unrealized potential to become better people & have a more thoughtful society.

Specifically to this subject, it can definitely seem too PC or over the top or heavy-handed.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the conversation, nor should it be a reason to hate all political correctness.

The balance is in sticking to one question at a time without making sweeping generalizations like, “well we just can’t have any comedians any more if I can’t say the N word when telling a racist joke”. Not saying you, specifically did this, but I see that line of reasoning a lot. That’s a slippery slope & should be avoided. 

This topic is a bit of an extreme example - I’ll note Shaun King didn’t write his article about fantasy hockey or fantasy golf, both of which use auction formats as well. But he’s somewhat known as a rabble rouser (and a liar and harasser of women) so I expect over the top PC from him because it gives him something to write about & get attention for. 

The rest of us should be able to entertain a mature discussion about whether or not he’s right. That doesn’t mean cancel culture is taking away our magical foozeball. ;) 

The people pushing these issues dont want to have a reasonable conversation about them. They make demands and threats. They create change through force and violence. Then when they are given their demands, they double down and do it all again because it worked. 

Edited by Insein
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...