Rocky Landing
-
Posts
7,275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
Written without a shred of irony... (...i think...)Shame what this country (world) is coming to. Since there is an unlimited amount of stuff to complain about it, there will be unlimited amount of people sitting comfortably to do so.
-
Who knew?And dyke isn't derogatory for lesbian?
-
Obviously, I think that "redskin" is a derogatory word for Native American.Do you really think the general connotation of Redskin, isn't the football team?
-
I don't believe that is a valid argument since intent is not relevant. Just as Hebe Magazine, and Dykes on Bikes were not meant to disparage, the trademarks were denied because they were considered disparaging words, regardless of intent. Dykes on Bikes successfully argued that the generally accepted connotation of the word had changed. The Redskins lost their trademark because the plaintiff had successfully argued that the term "redskin" was derogatory at the time of its registration in 1967. Intent was not relevant to the case, even though it may be relevant to this debate.If I were the Redskins, I'd try the same appeal: given that Native Americans are no longer referred to as Redskins, the franchise has successfully co-opted the word as a source of pride embodying the warrior ethos of the Native Americans.
It's not a strong argument, but it is a valid one, as I'm sure the Washington Redskins aren't named "Redskins" specifically to insult and disparage Native Americans, and the word is NOT used to describe Native Americans any more ("Indian" is rarely used nowadays, unless you're working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.) Not an appeal they'd win, either.
-
I was listening to the radio on my drive in to work this morning and they were debating this subject. A lot of the same points that I have been reading on here were being made by the two respective pundits. And, I will say this: the argument for not changing the name sounds slightly better when spoken with an English accent.
You're welcome.
-
You're making a spurious assumption that this is setting some sort of precedent. It isn't. Trademarks are denied all the time. For example, a publisher tried to trademark "Hebe Magazine," and was denied on the grounds it was disparaging towards Jews-- even though it was championing Jewish issues. Likewise, "Dykes on Bikes" was denied a trademark, because it was disparaging towards lesbians. They appealed, arguing that they had successfully co-opted the word, and turned it into a source of pride. They won their appeal.It is about trademarks...the whole thing is about the trademark being revoked. I don't want it to end up that you can't trademark 'Dan & Dan's Gay Extravaganza' because it is offensive to people. I don't want people saying you can't 'Muhammad's Islam Grill' because people find it offensive. I think you need to think further about the possible exploitation of this action.
This is simply the trademark process at work.
BTW- Muhammad's Islam Grill, assuming they served pork, would likely be denied a trademark.
-
-
I will say this: You have my admiration for somehow pulling Benghazi into this! And, without a shred of satire, no less. Bravo!!!Let's understand this bet: You want me to bet on a government agency, having made a headline grabbing decision, purposely attracting attention to itself(and its budget), to run a straight up appeals process, in the light of media scrutiny, and find itself to be wrong...in the midst of the ongoing IRS, Benghazi, VA and Obamacare messes?
-
You don't sound like a sucker. You sound utterly unhinged. But, I will bet you that Dan Snyder doesn't get a single civil lawsuit off the ground related to the USPTO ruling. What would be your time frame?Do I sound like a sucker, even a tiny bit, to you? Let me reciprocate: How about you bet me on whether Snyder sues the hell out of everyone?
-
How about a little wager? Whoever wins the appeal process? I'll take the side of the USPTO decision, you take the Redskins. Whoever wins gets to choose the other's avatar for a month.Yeah, because destruction of intellectual property is exactly the same thing as protecting Free Speech.
Are you going to be heading up the arguments for the USPTO in the Supreme Court case that is almost sure to be coming?
If so, please tell me when it is. I'll take time off, fly in, hang out with some of my cousins, and see you get curb stomped in court.
-
The problem that Native American proponents have with the Annenberg survey (other than the obvious fact that it doesn't fit their agenda), is that it was taken from a much broader political survey, and relied on people who self-identified as Native American. A survey taken from people who self-identified as tribal members would certainly garner a different result.Yes, The Annenberg Survey will most likely be ignored in this thread. It is a reputable collection of info but its 10 years old. We need a survey thats more recent. It seems that the most logical step on this issue would be to take a new survey with a larger sample size. PC's are reluctant to do so because they know the results would be hugely in favor of keeping the name.
Yes
At any rate, here is a very interesting link to an interview on the subject with Adam Clymer, the man who actually ran the National Annenberg Election Survey, from which the results were culled: http://indiancountry...nge-name-152737
-
Really (and, I can't believe I am actually taking the time to respond to you), if anything, the USPTO expanded free speech by removing trademark restrictions from the name "Redskins." Now anybody can use the name for whatever they like-- even Dan Snyder.Then you don't understand the concept of free expression at all.
There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech.
Free speech doesn't mean:
1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting.
2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view.
3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights.
No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).
Don't you feel freer?
-
Please tell me this is parody.Well, basic civics class can be daunting for the uneducated.
But don't worry, I'm very good at teaching things like "how this country actually works", and "what is legal, vs. what pleases you today". I do it all the time.
-
I'm speechless.The government's first job, and every government employee's first job, is to support and defend the Constitution.
The Constitution guarantees free speech.
Therefore, by limiting free speech in this way, the USPTO is doing the exact opposite of its job.
A Federal government agency is NOT to decide what speech is acceptable. If there is a party in another state that has been aggrieved by Redskins speech, then we have a vehicle for that: Federal lawsuit. And, when the Redskind inevitably appeal, and if that doesn't work, sue, to have their TMs restored, that will be their argument.
The USPTO will get blown out of the water in court, as they should. They have to know that. However, this entire exercise does cost Snyder $, and bad PR.
However, it is inexcusable for any government entity to be involved in limiting free speech. They are supposed to be the guarantors of it.
-
In my opinion, this is the best argument you have made. For the record, I have always maintained that context matters. It is context that makes every false comparison irrelevant. And, context is what makes this another false comparison.So the word "colored" isn't offensive? Got it.
That's because you jumped in halfway. That, and some argue context matters, or context doesn't matter, or context matters when I say so.
Washington "Redskins" is contextually not used to cause offense. The word Redskins by itself is derogatory. In the context of the team name, it isn't. Colored is derogatory. In the NAACP, it's contextually not used to cause offense. In the context of the organization name, it isn't derogatory.
The NAACP is well aware that "colored" has evolved into a derogatory term. They also represent the people who would be offended by it. There have been numerous debates, internally within their organization, as well as in the media, about whether they should change the name. These debates are ongoing. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they did change their name in the near future. But, they certainly aren't ignoring the current connotations of the word, nor are they misrepresenting their history in order to preserve their name.
The same cannot be said about the Redskins. Simply ignoring the connotation, and historical perception of a term does not make the term inoffensive. Writing press releases that misrepresent, or even fabricate the team's history regarding the term does not make it inoffensive-- quite the opposite, IMO.
But the biggest point regarding context is the one I already mentioned in my previous post. People- lots of people, especially Native Americans as evinced by a very expensive commercial, numerous protests, the NCAI, and various lawsuits- find the term "redskin" offensive. In contrast, almost nobody is offended by the NAACP, especially the people they purport to represent.
Again, the USPTO didn't "step into it." They ruled on a legally filed claim, as is their obligation. They aren't "pushing" anything. They are simply doing their jobs.It's wrong. The fact that people are offended is not a reason for the USPTO to step into it. It's a great reason for the NFL, the fans, etc to do so. No reason the USPTO should be pushing the issue.
-
It's inaccurate to suggest that the USPTO "took action." They ruled on a legal challenge. You can argue their ruling, but they didn't act out of thin air. As far as me not responding to your other false comparisons, again... bizarre. Is there some legal challenge to "News Whore" we should know about? What does this have to do with anything? That is my point about the false comparison argument-- it is utterly irrelevant.You're right, it's not an argument against changing the name. It's an argument against the USPTO taking action. I notice you conveniently leave out the other examples. I guess 'News Whores' is ok with you.
Because one of them isn't offensive, and the other one is. Seriously.Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not offensive, but Washington Redskins is?
If the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred Native American Tribes, were to argue, for decades, that the term was offensive, and the foremost linguistic experts on the term were to contend that it is offensive, and Webster's Dictionary were to define it as offensive, I would say that the term has been decided to be offensive.Who decides what is and is not an offensive term?
The USPTO?
-
There is a difference between a false comparison, and a valid comparison, and the difference seems glaringly obvious. The term "redskin," and the term "colored," in modern day usage, are both disparaging. (Although, the term "colored" has only achieved this status recently- within my lifetime- hence the continued use of NAACP.) There are also valid comparisons one could draw between the history of African Americans, and Native Americans in this country. Both were subjugated-- the former through slavery, the latter through genocide."Go call a black guy colored, and see how he responds"
/yourargument.
Where the comparison does turn false, however, is when a non-offensive term (like NAACP) is used to justify an offensive one (like "redskin").
Again, I'm not sure why I'm typing this? "The Washington Redskins should keep their name because the NAACP exists, and so does the state of Oklahoma," is not a statement that makes the slightest bit of sense.
-
Of all the standard arguments against changing the name, the "false comparison argument" strikes me as the most bizarre. It is so spurious, that it is almost difficult to argue-- one finds themselves typing statements that seem so painfully obvious, that you have to scratch your head, and wonder why anyone should have to bother.Using the same logic the USPTO applied in the Redskins case, the NAACP and United Negro College Fund should be forced to give up their trademarks as well.
And while not trademarked per se, I assume the State of Oklahoma will now be considering renaming itself. After all, Oklahoma means "Red Man" in Choctaw...
Then there's FAG, a mark for "lubricating oils and greases." Yep. The mark is registered and is not pending cancelation. This is not offensive according to the USPTO.
Stinky Gringo is the valid trademark for a type of premixed alcoholic cocktail.
And one more direclty analogous to the Redskins: RedMan is a mark registered for chewing tobacco, complete with Indian logo. It is a national brand, and the mark, far from being canceled, has been renewed without a hitch.
And then there's registered marks "NewsWhore", "Bitches Bash", "Creepy-Ass Cracka", and "Suck It", all of which enjoy good standing at the USPTO. But Redskins? No, that's offensive and has to go.
The Redskins should be renamed the USPTO is not the appropriate place to try to legislate them into changing.
So, here goes:
Comparing the moniker, "redskin," to other terms such as the NAACP, and the State of Oklahoma is not a valid argument against changing the name of the Washington Redskins, because the sky is blue, water is wet, life is short, death is long, and THEY ARE NOT OFFENSIVE TERMS.
-
I suspect that the bidding process will be favored towards those who can prove a commitment to keeping the team in Buffalo, and that will scare away some investors-- even some who would ultimately prefer to keep the team in Buffalo. The terms of the Non-Relocation Agreement will allow certain local entities, even politicians, who would otherwise not have influence, to exert pressure on potential bidders in this regard. This, combined with the uncertainties of the future stadium, the current state of RW Stadium, and the tepid regional economy will depress the sale price.
$950 million.
-
-
I believe that "thoroughly disproven" is an overstatement and misrepresentative of Goddard's work. Certainly, his statements regarding scalps are in dispute, but that represents a small portion of his study, which includes well researched, and documented evidence of his history of the word. Be that as it may, by Goddard's account, regardless of the word's origin, the term had become disparaging by the early 1800s at the latest- predating the naming of the team by over 100 years.This will come as a surprise to those who get their history from NFL team press releases, but Goddard's report has been thoroughly disproved in a subsequent report by the very same institution that Goddard wrote his for: the Smithsonian.
And it doesn't matter who coined the name first. Language, and people's opinions and interpretations of it, changes over time. In a civil rights speech, JFK used the term "negroes." When's the last time you heard a politician use that word?
And the reason why?
Because it is now deemed offensive.
It should also be understood that Redskin press releases have often been knowingly misleading regarding the origin of the team's name, as well as the attitudes of George Preston Marshall, and supposed support from Native American communities. In my mind, lying about your own organization's history in an attempt to seize some moral high ground excludes you from that high ground.
-
Everyone knows our D is good, and from all accounts, improved from last season. So, for this team, I'd feel pretty good if the offense were winning.
-
Well, clearly that depends on what offends thee: racial slurs, or political correctness?Flip that on its head: what number of offended can we ignore? One? Two? Four?
-
That's an interesting poll. I just checked it out on the ESPN site. It certainly doesn't change my mind in the slightest, though. I have no desire to jump on that bandwagon.ESPN Sportsnation online poll
Should the redskins change their name?
Yes- 37%
No- 63%
(Total Votes: 128,530 )
All 50 states favored 'No'.
New York voted 58% 'No'.
Oregon voted 52% 'No'. -Left leaning state
South Carolina voted 72% 'No'. -Right leaning state
International Poll Total Votes: 36,820
Yes- 37%
No- 63%
Can we trust Roger Goodell?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
No.