Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
"IF (and that is a huge, 150 point 'if') you believe in free speech, THEN dan snyder/whoever can name THEIR team/product/etc WHATEVER they want to name them, 'offensive' or not..."
Wow, talk about missing the point. I didn't say the government should pass a law stripping the team of their name. I said the US Government should not be in the business of sanctifying racist terms via trademark. Dan Snyder could also name his team the Washington Flaming Ass-Pounding Faggots. My response wouldn't be that a law should be passed to keep that from happening, but I damn well would say you don't allow a trademark on that term. Like I said before, this really isn't that hard....
"no fascist laws need passing"
Fascist? Groooooaaaaan. Nobody is talking about passing any fucking laws here. We're talking about applying the law as it's written. Did you even read the post?
"how about you actually show some concern for how indians are actually treated on their reservations, rather than the theoretical offenses you suffer on their behalf for the humiliation from being sports mascots..."
I'll thank you for not assuming you know what causes I "actually" support and have supported, and in what way, thank you very much. I'm a secular humanist for Christ's sake. Real concern for my fellow human beings is my god damn oxygen....
"(as an aside, did not hear the valid query of why MANY similar names/teams/etc are not subject to these 'rules', the KC chiefs, etc... have they managed to find the right tribal leaders to bribe to be 'okay' with it ? ? ? )"
While there is an obvious difference between the term "Chiefs" and "Redskins" (please tell me I don't have to explain that to you), I wouldn't mind if all those depictions went away. The Cleveland Indian logo is particularly offensive, and the Blackhawks logo is downright stupid....
"furthermore, if the polls cited by a number of other posters are in fact and in deed correct, it *SOUNDS LIKE* actual INDIANS don't have a major problem with it, only slacker-libtard, concern trolling, trust funders who have nothing better to do than have a butthurt-by-proxy-of-the-month club are the ones 'offended' by this..."
Sigh, the commenters above are missing out on the fact the tribal leaders at both a local and nat'l level met with Snyder and the NFL and asked them again to change the name just a few weeks ago. But here's a fun tip for you: I tend to know exactly what kind of person I'm dealing with when they make sure they let me know that they think "liberal" is a dirty word, or derogatory. That's how I know I'm dealing with an idiot....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Guys, come on, this one isn't that hard. Redskin IS offensive, fully in line with the "nigger" and "spic" examples you gave. The US government CANNOT be endorsing those kinds of words via trademarks. It just can't....
"People like Tim are just as bigoted as the people they complain about but somehow fail to see it in themselves. It is sadly ironic that many times when people like him rail against bigots they expose their own bigoted views."
Interesting. Please define my bigotry. How am I a bigot? What bigoted belief has my writing exposed?
"Is it, or is it not, racist to prefer one race that is not your own over another race that is not your own? It is a semantic loophole opened in the definition where none need exist."
Sorry, but I can't get past that I find the semantic question profoundly uninteresting because of its lack of practical application. When blacks begin lynching other blacks because they think whites are superior as a race, then we can have this discussion. It's a semantically silly position when you think about it.
1. A black person willing to kill blacks because whites are better should have killed themselves first, if they actually believed that universally.
2. A white person only hiring asians at the accounting office because of misguided notion about math universally applied to race should have fired themselves first.
The hypothetical doesn't make sense, and doesn't occur any way. It just isn't interesting as an argument....
You re-qualifying what you say about Tim is very courteous. I can personally assure you he appreciates it.
"I was merely pointing out that he was generalising by linking Confederate to racist."
Well, when Tim wrote that, he having a little fun with hyperbole, but it seems to me that a nation willing to die for slavery on its own institutionalized racism is one worth linking to another racist asshat....
"Oh, and there's no need for bad language or personal insults."
But without them, I/Tim/me/he would have nothing....
"Of which I personally had nothing to do with.Of which I personally had nothing to do with."
The very concept of historical context involves you having nothing to do with the historical context. Your point has no meaning.
"I try to take things that people say in the same context regardless of race and I would expect the same courtesy in return."
That's one way to do it and I largely agree with you. But what do you do when someone fails that standard back at you? Do you just stomp your feet and refuse to take their experiences and context into account as a matter of principal? You can, certainly, but I don't know how far that gets you....
That's simply not correct. The heart of racism is superiority and you don't gain superiority by unduly praising another race. The only time racism is applied to positive outlook is when that positive outlook is held about the race of which the subject is a part.
"There is no contradiction between celebrating halloween and being upset that a nativity scene is taken down, rather it would be hypocrital to prevent people from celebrating halloween (or even more some ritual that hasn't yet been accepted into christian dogma) while losing your shit when people do the same to your nativity scene."
Oh, but there is. The contradiction is that the same person who insists that removing a nativity from public land is offensive to their religiosity because of how important it is to them cannot then turn around and partake in a ritual that is historically the competitor of their religion. Either either the faith is dogmatic and important or it isn't. They can't insist on having their nativity AND insist on participating in paganism, at least while remaining intellectually consistent.
"Also, racism is not the only form of prejudice and don't "you people" me, I'm not even christian lol :)"
"Christians are actually open minded, tolerant and inclusive enough to embracing of outside cultural influences enough (for once) to adopt something as obviously foreign to Christianity as Halloween and you want to flog them for being hypocritical?"
Er, it isn't hypocritical to point out that the religious (not only Christian) in this country are only dogmatic when it suits their own prejudices. They'll celebrate Halloween but lose their shit if a nativity scene on public land is taken down. That's on you people, not me....
"Someday, I would like to hear a Liberal define "racist" instead of just tossing the word about upon a whim. Anybody on the TechDirt staff care to take a shot at it?"
Well, I wouldn't identify as capital "L" Liberal, but I'll take a shot at it.
Racist: the conceptualization of generally negative properties or potentials of a population based solely or mostly on group genetic heritage; must be not virtually true.
Example: Niggers are stupid, or, Crackers can't dance, Asians have more potential for math than whites
Example of something NOT racist: African Americans are over-represented in the American prison system (note this may or may not be true, but allows for causes outside of genetics or the culture of African Americans).
"Strikes me that Tim is veering towards racism here. To quote: "it's time for a fun little Confederate rant""
Ok, I'm really tired of this sort of bullshit. It's the same argument trotted out when you talk about religion, particularly with Islam for some reason. Attacking Islam, even going so far as to say "Islam is a horrible thing" is NOT RACIST, because Islam is not a race. It may be prejudicial, it may be over-generalizing (though I don't think so, if the argument is formed properly), but it sure as shit isn't racism.
The same applies to the Confederacy, for reasons so obvious that if you need to have them explained to you, you have deeper issues...
"I dunno if there's a female term for nigger but I call my girlfriend a nigger"
Okay, and I'm not going judge here now that I've gotten over my visceral reaction....but why would you do that? Seriously, I'm curious. I'm fully on board that context, relationships, and community matter....but why? Just shock value of those around you?