Rocky Landing
-
Posts
7,275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
That's an interesting point. But, I think the context matters in that case. The Redskins are calling themselves the Redskins in all seriousness, and choosing to ignore the historical ramifications. The clown will call a Native American a redskin in complete jest, in acknowledgment of the historical ramifications.Nope. It is funny how people are actually more accepting of things that are meant to offend than things that aren't though.
-
This is going to sound like a weird take to a lot of people, but I am against such an enormous expansion of the replay rules. I do think there are some plays that should be challengeable, that currently aren't. I recall one game (and my memory is vague on this), when Jon Gruden's Bucs lost (I think a playoff?) game on a field goal because of a completely flawed call, that even the refs agreed was wrong, but wasn't reviewable. (Gruden's response to the refs, as I recall, showed him to be a class act.)
BUT...
I think that there is an inherent unfairness to football. And, I think it needs to stay that way. A football game is not just about who is a better team. If it were, there would be a Super Bowl Series, and playoff games wouldn't be sudden-death. With football, there is an element of luck, and of human error. Maybe, even, luck and human error are the same thing. Often, when we watch a game, we walk away enraged. "WE WERE ROBBED!!!" Or, just the opposite: we walk away mopping the sweat off our brow, "how the hell did we pull that off???" When we watch a football game, we are watching a microcosm of the human experience. Football is the greatest spectator sport in the history of sports, because football has everything.
Does anyone feel that watching a football game is too emotional? I certainly DO believe that we should hold the refs to the highest standard possible, they should be well compensated, and we should protect against graft, and corruption. But, do we need to protect against outrage? The way I see it, the refs are almost as much a part of the game experience as the players. Yes, they're fallible. But, this isn't a video game. I guess I just prefer the human element to technology.
And, if we continue to use technology to "level the playing field," what does that make us? At what point do we replace the refs with computers? And, make no mistake, the refs COULD be replaced with computers this coming season. The technology exists.
And finally, there is something about mandating the instant replay for every play that feels to me like mandatory sentencing across our judicial system, that takes the human experience, and judgment out of the equation (and in my opinion, has made us a less equitable society). We want to hold the refs to a higher standard, not remove them from the standard.
-
Are you suggesting the Redskins are a crude joke? That may be the most cogent argument you've made!I would be curious to know what your stance on crude comedy is.
-
Fair enough, and thank you for the thoughts.I want to be very clear here. I'm going to construct this exact post, in the year 2940, when discussing the names of the new gravity-ball teams.
"One, is that Nazi heritage is not just about the extermination of Jews and other European groups which occurred over 1,000 years ago. That is European history, and the English, Poles, Jews, Austrians were all guilty of expansionism. But, more to the point, is that the Nazi legacy of Europe is not the legacy of the United States."
See how that fits?
Location doesn't matter. Except when it does. Time doesn't matter. Except when it does.
Even now, an advocate of changing the name of the 'Skins is arguing points that you and your author who got it "spot on" would find abhorrent. You're saying "because it happened here" is why it's wrong, and I'm sure many disagree that that is wrong. There's no unified front. There's no clear right/wrong. There's just a couple thousand Americans trying to fit their own fluid and differing personal moralities on someone else. A personal morality not based on any rules or continuity. It's just, "I think this is fine, I think this is wrong."
Which is fine. America the free and all that. But I'm not for it. Happy Memorial Day by the way, thank God for Vets who gave us the freedom to discuss these issues.
-
I think there are several relevant points here. One, is that Viking heritage is not just about the raids against the rest of Europe, which occurred over 1,000 years ago. That is European history, and Anglo-Saxons, Gauls, Romans, etc were all guilty of expansionism. But, more to the point, is that the Viking legacy of Northern raids is not the legacy of the United States. The Native American genocide is every bit as much of our national identity as is slavery. And, the NFL team, the Redskins, is representing our nation's capital.How does "Redskins" have a negative connotation in history and go against common decency, and "Vikings" doesn't? Instead of being named after victims of tragedy, Vikings is named after the AGGRESSORS. The rapists, the pillagers.
I honestly need someone to explain this to me. I don't get it.
Friends of mine occasionally call me a Viking, to my face, and it is usually meant as a compliment. Conversely, I have never heard anyone decry the destruction of their heritage by the Vikings over 1,000 years ago.
Just my opinion.
-
My mother's maiden name is Whicktor. I have proud Viking heritage, and the term "Viking" has never occurred to me to be derogatory in any way, to anybody. But, I think this is pretty obvious to everybody. What's not obvious is why it would be a relevant point.There's the rub. In that article that got it "spot on" (I know you didn't post it), he says he wouldn't use the term "gyp" even if gypsies all got beamed to outer space and ceased to exist (paraphrased). So obviously, existence doesn't matter to that author.
More specifically to you, does anyone associate with Nazism anymore? Do Nazis exist still? Do I smell an expansion team?
And there's probably a Magnus Magnusson out there who associates with Vikings.
-
The formula for the passer rating is: [(a + b + c + d)/6] x 100, whereas a = [(completions/attempts x 100) – 30] x 0.05; b = [(yards/att) – 3] x 0.25; c = (TD/att) x 20; and d = 2.375 – (interceptions/att x 25).
Q: What’s missing from this equation? A: any variables that include the performance of any other player on the field other than the quarterback. So, if a QB has no offensive line to speak of and is only given an average of 1.6 seconds to get rid of the ball before being sacked, their rating will be low. Or, if a QB is playing a superior defense, their rating will be lower. If a QB has phenomenal receivers, their rating will be higher. That's why Russel Wilson can have a rating of 49.6 against the Cardinals in week 15, and a 102.1 against the Rams the following week. It's worthy to note that their are no published p-values, critical values, or significance levels (at least that I have ever found) for the passer rating. It has no use for statistical analysis.
I think that the only use for the passer rating is for (crudely) tracking a single QB's performance against weekly variables such as the one's mentioned above. It has almost no value for comparing different players on different teams. In fact, I might go as far as to say that it is a better indicator of team performance than of QB performance.
-
I'm wondering where this notion that a significant number of Native Americans don't find the term "redskin" offensive comes from?-- all evidence to the contrary. The word "redskin" as a derogatory term goes back well over a century. All of the legal challenges to the name have come from Native American groups. as well as numerous protests-- all going back decades. Numerous Native American groups have publicly condemned the name. What more does it take?
I also have to disagree with machine gun kelly that this is some issue for "a bunch of bleeding heart liberals," (a sentiment echoed by some other posters in less obnoxious terms). If anyone knows anything about Charles Krauthammer, they will know that he is one of the most conservative editorialists in print. And, he gets it exactly right in this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-redskins-and-reason/2013/10/17/cbb11eee-374f-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html
-
I'm really NOT taking this as personally as you seem to think I am. I'm debating from an historical perspective. If arguing a perspective about what is, or isn't offensive is, "telling others what to believe," then what are you doing?You seem to believe your sensibilites are the most important. With your whole history book stance, it's clear that you believe this is one of the great injustices in the world and will be written as such. Why you? Why this case? Why not WBC getting harassed for their speech? Why not the offensiveness of "black?" Are those things "more ok" than Redskins? Who is the judge of those things, is it you?
See the difference between us is that I don't care about a group of people who don't care, and I don't believe in telling others what to believe. You do. You're taking your beliefs, telling Snyder that he's wrong and you're right, and telling the MAJORITY of Native Americans what they should be offended by. You think I'm insensitive about my majority comments? What about you? Telling a beautiful culture, who has suffered more than you ever will, what they should care about? Is that being sensitive, or acting like they're invalids who need you to defend them from perceived threats?
Edit:
Tom'd again.
Be that as it may, your anger is seething off the page, and I have no desire to engage with someone in personal attacks over a difference of opinion, or perspective. Feel free to take the last word, if you like.
-
I appreciate the debate, and I'm not even going to be offended by your trying to equate my perspective to that of the WBC. That being said, I find all of your arguments to be spurious, and for the most part, deflective.Why hasn't this been a big deal for the last 81 years?
Why has the senate waited so long to denounce it?
And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).
Do you remember when a small portion of the black community was offended by being called black? Did the Senate write any letters? What side of history were you then? Bill Cosby is offended by the term African-American. What side of history are you on there?
It's a name that had negative connotations, sure. But if you're seriously championing a cause as "justice in the history books" that the people who are being "wronged" don't even agree on, I don't know what to tell you.
What about Westboro Baptist Church? They were "offended" by a lot of stuff. Did you write them off or support them? What side of history do you stand on there?
EDIT: I realize that WBC talk might have banished this to PPP. Whoops.
1) Not by the senate (that I am aware of), but by Native American organizations.Then you haven't been paying attention - there has been plenty of talk about revoking the Redskins' trademark protections.
"Cheesehead" is an epithet against the Dutch, and "Pepsi" is an epithet against French-Canadians.
I'm sorry, isn't the argument that there are no "degrees" of offense, and any offense should be avoided? Because that's what I keep hearing...if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed.
Are we arguing now that yes, the magnitude of the offense does actually matter?
2) I don't believe that we waged genocide against the Dutch or French-Canadians.
3) I don't agree with the sentiment that, "if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed." I would argue that the "magnitude of the offense" certainly does matter. I don't understand why it wouldn't.
-
I suppose it is just a question of which side of history you choose to stand.A lot of words, and things people say are rooted in some form of insult, racism, bigotry, etc etc. The only way to differentiate whether they are offensive or not is with the speakers intent.
Just following along with the theme of Sports teams names shows that the team name is meant to inspire its team members and fans, not secretly demean, and offend people.
You can feel like its a "national embarrassment" all you want, but don't include the rest of us in your crusade....(oops)
-
The notion that you are insinuating- that anybody, including the senate, is forcing the Redskins to change their name is spurious. Their right to calling themselves such is constitutionally guaranteed as free speech under the first amendment. Were the senate to attempt such a coup, the ACLU would be all over it. And, the senate, and everybody else, has the same right to denounce it.Someone let me know when the Senate's going to force Packers fans to stop calling themselves cheeseheads and offending the Dutch. And the NFL better drop Pepsi as a sponsor, or risk offending the Quebecois.
But, more to the point: The Dutch are not offended by the "cheesehead" Moniker, neither are the Quebecois offended by NFL endorsements, and the comparison utterly belittles the genocide of millions of Native Americans, the scant remainder of whom are U.S. citizens. Was that really your intention?
-
Truly, there is no denying that the term "redskin" is rooted in racism, and genocide. Even a cursory examination of the word's history will bear that out.Let's all be genuine for a second and ask ourselves, is the team name Washington Redskins intended to be offensive? Nope. Does the organization involved take real steps to offend, denigrate, or harm the affected people? No. So what are we really talking about here? The name of a football team that could be interpreted as offensive, but is not intended that way. But that would mean people would need to look into the substance and context of something rather than just being outraged. Being outraged is easier and more exciting.
Also, a word about context: I know that most of the people who post on here live in WNY. I was born and raised in Rochester, myself. I have been living in Los Angeles for over twenty years, and spent a couple years in New Mexico. Living in the South West definitely gives me a different perspective. There is a MUCH larger population of true Native Americans here. (When I say "true" Native Americans, I'm not talking about your friend who brags about being 1/32 Cherokee.) There are still reservations here in places like Death Valley, the Mojave Desert, the Mimbres Desert, etc.. I truly cannot imagine walking up to one of the Native Americans I have met here and making some of the arguments I have read on this forum to their face. Examples: "They shouldn't change the name, because they didn't originally intend it to be offensive." "It will cost them money." "It's tradition." "The members of the Senate have no business commenting on the name of the capital's football team." And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).
I'm sorry, but I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post: The fact that we have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named the most offensive epithet you can call a Native American is a national embarrassment.
-
What's denigrating about "fighting" Irish? I could understand if it was "cowering" Irish, or "drunken" Irish...I support the Senators views to change the redskins name but, only, if they agree to also urge Notre Dame to change from the "fighting" Irish to something more politically correct.
-
I get your point, there certainly are differences (although, comparing the Native American genocide to your European roots is also rather inaccurate). But, the Native American genocide (and, I DO believe that genocide is an appropriate designation), is no less a part of our national identity than is slavery. There just happens to be quite a bit fewer true Native Americans left to offend, than descendants of slavery. And I do believe that just about nobody would approve of naming a team after ANY reference to slavery.Maryland State Legislature would be better off doing something government-related. You know, their jobs? Draft laws and all that. I don't know if they're supposed to pressure private companies to alter their brand and lose millions of dollars, because of something that has no economic, physical, or even mental detriment to the majority.
The situation's are further apart than you suggest. The Holocaust and the US-native incidents were not similar in motivations nor scale.
Also, most Native American atrocities were committed closer to 200 years ago, not 70. The Vikings used to rape and pillage my people back 1000 years ago, can I be outraged at Minnesota? Can I get the US senators to write them a letter?
One of the differences to the Nazi genocide that I might add to your list, is that the Native American genocide was much more successful. Also, as far as scale, there were an estimated six million Jews who died in the holocaust. Scholarly estimates for the Native American Holocaust range from two to 18 million. And, much more recent than 200 years. The famous Wounded Knee massacre occurred in 1890. The last on record, as such, was a massacre of eight Shoshones in 1911-- just a little over 100 years ago. After that, who was left?
One other difference between the Jewish Holocaust, and the Native American Holocaust, is that the former occurred in Germany. The latter occurred here. In Germany, it is a crime to display the Swastika (an abrogation of civil liberties we would never tolerate). We, on the other hand, have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named after the worst epithet you can call a Native American.
-
Hmm... would the Hamburg Kikes be much better? I guess not. But perhaps, were the team in Maryland, it would be an issue for the Maryland State Legislature?How about having that team in Maryland?
-
The argument has been made that, regardless of whether or not the name should be changed, the Senate has no business discussing it. Well, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. Really, having a team, in the nation's capital, with such an offensive name is a national embarrassment. It's along the same lines as if Berlin, the capital of Germany, had a soccer team called the Berlin Kikes. It really is.
-
Very rational.While I do not believe the Senate spent a great deal of time on this, I am not a big fan of legislators spending any time at all on the offensiveness of the name of a football team when there are much more critical issues they should be addressing. I think, as a society, we have become overly sensitive and much too willing to yield to "sensitivity" demands that border on the ludicrous at times. With that said; however, we should (as I used to tell my children) pick and choose our battles wisely. This is not the battle to pick. The term "Redskins" has always had negative connotations associated with it and any arguments to the contrary are just not rooted in fact or logic. I think they could easily change it to something like the Washington Warriors and even keep a semblance of their logo, if not the actual logo (as it was designed by a Native American) to honor the bravery of the Native American in battle.
-
I didn't expect everyone to understand my sarcasm. Your post suggested that words should be limited in their meaning, stripped of the ability to offend. Your statement that, "I don't give one whirlygig what a name says and no one else should, either." implies that there is no excuse for someone to place enough meaning in a title, that it could convey something offensive. Which, in turn, implies that words should not have the ability to offend. So, where do you draw the line? How much meaning should words have the ability to communicate?they're not random, i made sure to use the entire alphabet, even a digit.
Does that mean that I don't have the right to express my opinions about the Bills because I am from Rochester?But the senators aren't residents of the city. They just work there. Not to mention the fact that many of them don't even stay in the city when they are in session.
-
As ExiledinIllinois pointed out, they are the Washington Redskins, as in Washington DC. If the team weren't in their own city, I would agree with you. But, as residents of the city, I think they have every right to express their opinion.Regardless of your opinion of the offensiveness of the name, the government has no business getting involved.
-
So, is your post supposed to mean something? Or, is it just a random pile of letters scattered on a page?I don't care if 100% of Native Americans are offended by it, or 100% of the entire population. I don't care if the team is named the Richmond N-words. I don't give one whirlygig what a name says and no one else should, either. It's when you believe the name means something and holds something to it...yeah.
#hypocrisyisawesome.
-
I think the Bills should move to Rochester, and become the Rochester Bills.
-
I know. But, it's certainly not worthy of its own thread.and nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Of course, it could never happen, for a myriad of reasons.Jimmy Spagnola would have no part of this proposal. He'd shiv any mofo in favor of it.
-
Numerous Native American tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians have spoken out against the name, claiming that it is offensive, and tantamount to the "N-word." Would you characterize the Native American community as, "extremist, butt hurt liberals?"I'd tell Senate to stick it. This country is over offended and over Sensitive. Rub some dirt on it and get over it. More extremist, butt hurt liberals who are the very loud minority finding something else to be 'Offended' about.
Senators Urge N.F.L. to Act on Redskins’ Name
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted