Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the and-the-winner-is... dept

Once again this week, it looks like one comment took home the gold medal in both categories. And it wasn’t even close, even if it was on a story that was just published late Friday morning. So step right up Dark Helmet and claim your prize for both most insightful and funniest according to folks here, on your comment about Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his complaint that a photograph of him with scribbled devil markings on it was somehow “anti-semitic”:

Ah, I see. Dan Snyder objects to the to squigly lines drawing devil horns and a goatee (by cracky) on his image because they’re anti-Semetic. Dan Snyder, you see, is against images and depictions of racist and culturally insensitive nature.

Hey, fuckhead. You own an NFL football team based in the nation’s capital called the REDSKINS! Are you kidding me? It’s an insensitive term with a stereotypical logo of an American Indian, the gall of which is only supplanted by the fact that the team is located in the home city of the governing body that raped and pillaged their people? Who the hell are you crappin’?

How about some Irish immigrant owning a football team called the New York Porchmonkeys (I’m just bringing it back)? Or that Saratoga Slants? Maybe the Talahassee Towelheads? Portland Pollocks? Ooooh, the Memphis Micks (that one is close to my heart)?

Way to be a hypocritical polesmoker there, D-bag….

I almost feel like we shouldn’t even bother looking at other comments after that one, but just to satisfy everyone’s curiosity, the next two on the most insightful list were both short and sweet, so I’ll include them both. The first was a comment on Egypt’s decision to shut down the internet, where an anonymous commenter made a simple point:

If your government shuts down the internet, shut down your government.

And, in discussing the study financed by NBC Universal that showed that the amount of “piracy” online was driven, in large part, by their own failure to provide legitimate alternatives, Marcus Carab pointed out a key point that is so frustrating to so many of us. In responding to another interesting comment about the amount of data in the Library of Congress, Marcus stated the unfortunate truth:

That quote highlights another thing worth noting here: we now live in and age where it’s technologically trivial to have the entire library of congress in your room, and yet thanks to copyright, none of us do.

Over on the “funny” side was a rather wry comment from anonymous user, poking a bit of fun at the people who believe that kicking people off the internet will lead to increased music sales. So, when Egypt shut off its internet access, that commenter asked:

I wonder how much music sales went up during this period.

And in third place, thublihnk responded to Feargal Sharkey’s complaint that thinking about increasing fair use in the UK was nothing more than “intellectual masturbation” by putting it into the appropriate context:

I know sometimes when I’m alone in my apartment I like to turn the lights down low, maybe light some incense and just think about the proper way to treat intellectual property in relation to content creation and distribution in the interconnected age of today.

Thanks for another week of fantastic commentary.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

I don’t see how that is correct logic. Indians are very proud of that so-called “stereotypical” image, and are seen taking on that attire often to honor their culture and their warrior spirit, which is what the point of the team being called the Redskins and using that logo to begin with. It’s not the same at all as the other examples you gave.

Greg G (profile) says:


I really don’t care if they hate the name. I’m just sick of people claiming to be “offended” by every little thing.

Indians don’t like the use of the name “Redskins!” Waaah, get over it.

Pacifists didn’t like the name of the Washington Bullets, so they caved and became the Washington Wizards.

Who else has an Indian name? Chicago Blackhawks. Or the Atlanta Braves. Or the Florida Seminoles. I’m sure some are offended by that. Come on, let’s change the team name to appease the minority that hates the name.

What about the Colorado Avalanche? How insensitive to all the people/towns ever buried in one. Change the name of the team now! And I’m sure there are trees out there that hate the name of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Oak trees feel left out.

Hypocrisy is one thing, and I agree that the ‘skins owner is a douche because of it, but get a grip, people. Get over the over-sensitivity and “everything offends me” mindset.

Robert Ketterer (user link) says: Scam? or worse?

Internet is flying with stories that is a scam financed directly or indirectly by the evil one(you know, George). Can you debunk this charge? Have you crossed swords with Snopes? Do you have any inside scoop? This may be a bit are afield but copyright, gov’t intervention and such is getting too scary and a short change of topic would be appreciated.

Jesse says:


First of all, Indians are from India. Columbus made a mistake hundreds of years ago and now there is an entire nation propagating that mistake. Geographically, culturally and genetically speaking, it would be as if I were to confuse white Americans with Chinese.

Second of all, Red Skins has become a slur, if it wasn’t always. Even if some black people have chosen to reclaim the word “nigger” or gay people choose to reclaim the word “queer,” it doesn’t make it acceptable for non-members to toss it around carelessly.

Anonymous Coward says:


How about a team named 9/11-Glory days or 9/11-Killers or 9/11-Mohamed, it has to be something that reminds some people of really bad times, or Discovery-Boom, would you be ok with those kind of names that bring back such horrible memories, the same is for pejoratives when people destroyed others culture.

How about celebrating something truly horrible that happened to Americans with a cute name?

You see I agree some people are sensitive and there a lot of BS going on, but c’mom if it was something that offended most Americans you would see changes, but today we just don’t go out and kill people to do those changes or violence is necessary to show how serious someone is like religious fanatics of today like Islamic fundamentalists?

FarmerBob (profile) says:


The Avs use to be called the Rockies. But now our baseball team is called the Rockies. So they did change their name once already. What about the Pittsburgh Penguins? Those poor birds having to put up with that new crap logo, when the old one was far more sophisticated and less cartoony. So more PC (Politically Coorect) and more comical is the trick?

Anyway, I though this was a “technical” forum? Not a “political” one.

Anonymous Coward says:

People just don’t get it. It’s a tribute to the Indians that we did wrong. In fact, one of the stories regarding the origin of the name is a direct tribute to an Indian coach who commonly donned the headdress for motivation. The original comment in the story is from someone who simply doesn’t understand basic logic, and the examples they gave as equivalents were not even close to the same thing. And, to one above poster, not all Indians are offended. If you look at the articles, it’s a small group of Indians, and there were also many that thought the name was a tribute. This sentiment is repeated many times: “Interestingly, most of the people who sizzle with outrage over Indian team names and mascots are not Indians. American Indians can be found vigorously arguing on both sides.” So, I’m sure it was some white kid who doesn’t even watch football that made the ridiculous comment that techdirt loved so much. Maybe think about it next time and use a little logic.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:


“So, I’m sure it was some white kid who doesn’t even watch football that made the ridiculous comment that techdirt loved so much.”

White? Check.

Doesn’t watch football? Yeah, right. I’m a huge Bears fan and a member of a state with a state school involved in a ridiculous controversy for YEARS about an American Indian mascot, so much so that I’ve heard a TON of the debate on the topic (Chief Illiniwik).

You want to swap football know how as proof? The relative successes of the 4-3 defense in the modern era vs. the transformative 3-4? The defensive philosophy of the Cover/Tampa Two defense and the role of both safeties as deep covermen? Timing based offenses like Mike Martz’s compared with the “see it, throw it” formula favored by the West Coast offense? Emergin football metrics and their uselessness relative to baseball statistics? The silliness of relying on QB efficieny ratings as any kind of a metric for performance? The most effective run it / throw it ratio for a modern era quarterback? Which position is the cornerstone of an O-line, or the importance in different schemes of a 3-technique tackle on the D-Line?

C’mon, friend, which football topic would you like to rap about?

Sneeje (profile) says:


Sorry, you’re not getting it. It is irrelevant whether the name redskins is offensive. The point is that if you are going to complain that someone did something racially insensitive to you, it is the height of hypocrisy when you are at the center of a dispute about racial insensitivity yourself.

Native Americans have sued repeatedly to get the Redskins to change the name, so their opinion of the name is clear.

If Mr. Snyder wants to be the victim he needs to treat others as he wishes to be treated.

rockapotamus says:


Funny story… you’re exactly like the people who want to take ‘nigger’ out of Huck Finn. Or the people who get offended by the crows in Dumbo. When these things were published they were actually progressive views. And at this point, it’s considered offensive, but why is it that big of a deal? Ninety-one percent of American Indians don’t find the name offensive (there was a poll for that in 2004). And how many people honestly call American Indians redskins anymore? It’s pointless to get so worked up about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Yes, as shown in the articles during brief research, only 9% of American Indians found the name offensive. Many even were proud of the team’s name. If it doesn’t bother the Native Americans, it shouldn’t be a big “political correctness” debate amongst the people with no stakes in the game. So, the statement that we know how the Native Americans feel because a few have sued, is incorrect. A small group can be offended by anything, but that doesn’t make it universally wrong. Especially when it’s obvious to those with common sense that it is a tribute to the Native Americans.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...