keepthefaith vs. LeviF91

[4merper4mer]

keepthefaith and LeviF91: Please refer back to the original thread for rules. One tip is to be as insulting as possible. Making up topical or personal facts to bolster your argument is neither encouraged no frowned upon and there will be little to no fact checking by the judge. Me.

 

Everyone else: Feel free to comment on this battle but please put your comments in the original thread, not this one.

 

Topic: Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

 

Pick a side. If you pick opposite sides, start arguing. If you both want the same side there will be one more post in here by the judge. Me. It will pick the sides for you. After that, I will be back only to declare a winner.

[LeviF]

I'll argue that they should not change their name. If keepthefaith is part featherhead this should be interesting.

Edited October 7, 2013 by LeviF91

[keepthefaith]

Will weigh in tonight. Have to get some work done today. This should be fun.

[4merper4mer]

Feel free to comment in the main thread. Stop being rude in here. This is for LeviF91 and keepthefaith to attack the topic, each other, and civility in general.

 

Please delete your posts Gary and Birdog1960. Birdog being too chicken to join the fray, you'll be happy to know that you can insult as many people as you'd like in the main thread.

 

Will weigh in tonight. Have to get some work done today. This should be fun.

 

There is not a rush as long as you have well thought out arguments and insults. You have however been assigned the argument that the Redskins SHOULD change their name. If you had time to say you didn't have time then you had time to say which side you want. You forfeited that.

 

LeviF91 start whenever you want.

 

All: Please keep this thread to keepthefaith and LeviF91.

Edited October 7, 2013 by 4merper4mer

[LeviF]

I have prepared several points to open.

 

1. Anyone who is arguing that the name should be changed is just a hand-wringing pansy. Most of the people who say the name should be changed aren't even Natives. They're either libs (see: hand-wringing pansy) or people who say that they're 1/16 Cherokee (we all know what that means).

 

2. I've never seen anybody prove that a significant portion of the Native population finds the name offensive (one study found that a whopping 90% of Natives don't find it offensive). And even if they did, who cares?

 

3. The term "redskin" isn't even a racial slur. They don't even look red. I'm pretty sure it refers to their war paint (probably their enemies' blood smeared on their faces) and how they are fierce warriors. Really, it's a compliment.

 

4. The name is backed by 80 years of fan tradition. Imagine if 10% of the guys named William in the US decided that the Buffalo "Bills" name is offensive and a stupid campaign started to change the name of our beloved team. We'd be outraged and would find the notion preposterous. While I don't have a lot of sympathy for Redskins fans on principle, we can at least empathize with them on this point.

 

5. The Redskins are a privately owned team. Dan Snyder can call them whatever the hell he wants. They still make tons of money.

 

6. I need a point that the hand-wringing pansies can appreciate, so here it is: this "campaign" and the media coverage it gets only serves as a distraction from real issues that Native Americans face, such as tribal disenrollment.

[keepthefaith]

That "Redskin" is a racial descriptor is reason enough to change the name but far from the best reason. How about we name some new teams the Harrisburg Honkies, Nantucket Negroes or the Cheektowaga Chinks?

 

Enough of that nonsense because the real reason Daniel Snyder is being pressured to change the name has nothing to do with the racial component. What has gone wildly under-reported is why Native Americans are unhappy with the Washington football team continuing to use the name "Redskins". They're upset because the team no longer honors their values. The Native American culture emphasizes values and principles such as courage, bravery and honor. The proud Native American heritage was well represented for decades by the Washington football team winning 3 Superbowls in the 80's and 90's and a number of division championships throughout their history with players like Kilmer, Riggins, Jurgensen, Monk, Huff, Green, Grimm, Baugh and coaches like Allen and Gibbs. The teams graced with these players and coaches upheld the honor and pride of Native Americans.

 

The Daniel Snyder era began with optimism and a sense of stability. In came a wealthy and successful businessman with the resources and business acumen to navigate this proud franchise into the modern era of football where the business of football became critical in order to achieve success on the field. Certainly Snyder would deliver the kind of performance that would continue the proud and honorable traditions of the Native American. Unfortunately for Mr. Snyder, his record as a team owner since 1999 is under .500 and during this time he's hired and fired 7 coaches none of which have a winning record. Despite all of the business experience and one of the highest payrolls in the league each year, the team is a failure under his leadership. This my friends if why Native Americans want the name changed as each losing Redskins season is a reminder of how their ancestors lost every battle with the white man and ultimately most of their land.

 

Snyder, in order to preserve the great Washington Redskins heritage should change the name of the team before he tarnishes it even further. Frankly the Redskins football team needs a fresh start and moving the team should also be considered. Snyder's larger problem is not the changing of the name but the perception of weakness that will ensue if he caves into the pressure to do so. If he were smart he would do it immediately and do it under the guise of racial sensitivity. This may be his only way to save face as each loss, each losing season and each fired and hired coach destroys another pillar of this once proud franchise. It's the lesser of two evils and one that would be lauded by the liberal media. In addition, it may increase the value of the franchise while spawning an avalanche of revenue for the sale of new jerseys and other team gear.

 

Daniel, don't be a fool. The media is handing you a giant opportunity on a silver platter. Seize the opportunity to get the public off your back, preserve the proud heritage of the Redskins and line your wallet while you're at it. Any capitalist pig would jump at the chance.

 

As for you Mr. Levi, I don't expect you to grasp any of this. It can't be possible for anyone that goes by "Levi" to relate to the principles of courage, bravery or honor.

[LeviF]

That "Redskin" is a racial descriptor is reason enough to change the name but far from the best reason. How about we name some new teams the Harrisburg Honkies, Nantucket Negroes or the Cheektowaga Chinks?

 

I was hoping for Washington Wetbacks and Columbus Christ Killers myself. Where do we sign up? Those are awesome names.

 

Enough of that nonsense because the real reason Daniel Snyder is being pressured to change the name has nothing to do with the racial component. What has gone wildly under-reported is why Native Americans are unhappy with the Washington football team continuing to use the name "Redskins". They're upset because the team no longer honors their values. The Native American culture emphasizes values and principles such as courage, bravery and honor. The proud Native American heritage was well represented for decades by the Washington football team winning 3 Superbowls in the 80's and 90's and a number of division championships throughout their history with players like Kilmer, Riggins, Jurgensen, Monk, Huff, Green, Grimm, Baugh and coaches like Allen and Gibbs. The teams graced with these players and coaches upheld the honor and pride of Native Americans.

 

This entire point is invalid since the only values that Natives had after the 1600's were firewater and smallpox.

 

The Daniel Snyder era began with optimism and a sense of stability. In came a wealthy and successful businessman with the resources and business acumen to navigate this proud franchise into the modern era of football where the business of football became critical in order to achieve success on the field. Certainly Snyder would deliver the kind of performance that would continue the proud and honorable traditions of the Native American. Unfortunately for Mr. Snyder, his record as a team owner since 1999 is under .500 and during this time he's hired and fired 7 coaches none of which have a winning record. Despite all of the business experience and one of the highest payrolls in the league each year, the team is a failure under his leadership. This my friends if why Native Americans want the name changed as each losing Redskins season is a reminder of how their ancestors lost every battle with the white man and ultimately most of their land.

 

As I have already pointed out, Natives are not the primary hell-raisers with regard to the name change. Setting aside the obvious point that Native Americans probably deserve to be reminded of their losses, keepthefaith would apparently have the only NFL team that honors a once proud and populous people entirely abandon their homage in favor of something more "politically correct." Should the Minnesota Vikings also change their name, having a sub-.500 record since 2000, since they somehow no longer represent Scandinavians well? Preposterous.

 

Snyder, in order to preserve the great Washington Redskins heritage should change the name of the team before he tarnishes it even further. Frankly the Redskins football team needs a fresh start and moving the team should also be considered. Snyder's larger problem is not the changing of the name but the perception of weakness that will ensue if he caves into the pressure to do so. If he were smart he would do it immediately and do it under the guise of racial sensitivity. This may be his only way to save face as each loss, each losing season and each fired and hired coach destroys another pillar of this once proud franchise. It's the lesser of two evils and one that would be lauded by the liberal media. In addition, it may increase the value of the franchise while spawning an avalanche of revenue for the sale of new jerseys and other team gear.

 

Daniel, don't be a fool. The media is handing you a giant opportunity on a silver platter. Seize the opportunity to get the public off your back, preserve the proud heritage of the Redskins and line your wallet while you're at it. Any capitalist pig would jump at the chance.

 

Couple of points here. First, the idea of changing the name of the franchise (and moving them!) in order to preserve the heritage of the franchise sounds really great. Ask any SuperSonics fan.

 

Second, while an influx of revenue is virtually guaranteed with a name change, the bottom line isn't the only thing that Dan Snyder is concerned about. My opponent forgets one key fact: Dan Snyder has been a passionate Redskins fan his whole life. The man bleeds burgundy and gold like any of us Bills fans bleed red and blue, and no amount of money will ever change that.

 

As for you Mr. Levi, I don't expect you to grasp any of this. It can't be possible for anyone that goes by "Levi" to relate to the principles of courage, bravery or honor.

 

I will largely ignore the irony in the fact that someone who goes by "keepthefaith" has no idea what the origin of the name "Levi" is.

 

 

I think it's pretty clear that there are several reasons to not change the name. And it appears that the only legitimate reason to change it is to get more money. The allure of such monetary gain quickly disappears for a man who, already being a billionaire, is attached and committed to his team and its timeless name and mascot through almost half a century of being a fan. Don't change the name, Dan. You'll regret it forever if you do.

[keepthefaith]

OK, so we learned that the judge doesn't like arguments that stretch the truth and you took the bait. I'll respond later today as time permits.

Edited October 8, 2013 by keepthefaith

[LeviF]

You may as well be arguing that I change the name of my beloved Buffalo Bills for the sake of some cash and making the liberal media happy with me. For shame, man! Keepthefaith has made his positions very clear on the matter. Tradition means nothing. Fanhood means nothing. I can't help but wonder if these positions extend to his favorite team as well.

[keepthefaith]

We agree, tradition is meaningful. Unfortunately for Snyder somebody else may be in a position to take it away from him or tarnish it significantly. Let’s put our business advisor hats on and offer Mr. Snyder some advice. That’s OK Levi if you don’t own one of those hats. You can borrow one of mine. So far your only argument is basically that it’s Snyder’s team, it’s up to him what name is used and that the term “Redskin” isn’t offensive so he shouldn’t worry about it. You’re saying that Native Americans for the most part don’t really care. Look up the Redskin term as it was used in North America and you’ll find that it’s a reference by the white man to Indians that were scalped. No doubt it’s a derogatory and racist term. The Chicago Blackhawk name is simply a tribe name and has no derogatory meaning. Big difference.

Still Levi you’re completely missing the big picture here. Pressure to change the name isn’t likely to come from Native Americans. Heck they make up less than 1% of the population and in the Washington area market less than .5% of the population. Pressure to change is coming and will come from several other sources. Here’s a few of them.

 

1. The liberal race sensitive media. Dozens of articles have been written on the topic in recent weeks with the vast majority clamoring for Snyder to change the name. Unfortunately for Snyder it’s good for the media business to create a story here even if it’s not all that important. Expect it to continue. Good grief several TV analysts have already adopted a policy of not using the Redskin name when talking about the football team in DC. . More will follow.

2. Snyder’s insurance company. Insurance companies hate needless risk. Snyder’s liability carrier has to be looking at this and could raise rates or drop coverage over the matter.

 

3. NFL management. No doubt the NFL is a very racially sensitive organization. Just look at all the diversity policies they’ve adopted in recent years. Hiring of coaches, hiring of analysts on the NFL network and the support of minority youth organizations. Goodell himself has moved his position on this matter from defending the Redskin name to now saying it’s up to Mr. Snyder. The league sees the derogatory Redskin name as counter to it’s diversity efforts. What do you think is the conversation on this in private between Roger and Dan?

 

4. Snyder’s fellow NFL owners will pressure him if the media buzz gets too loud. It’s one less headache for the league.

 

5. Politicians are now getting involved. Obama has weighed in suggesting the name be changed and civil rights groups are lobbying members of Congress. This thing is gaining traction.

 

6. The court of public opinion. Since the majority of the news on the topic is negative toward the Redskin name, Snyder is losing public support.

 

7. Lawyers. Lawyers will advise Snyder of his rights and the risks in keeping the Redskin name. Defending more suits on this matter even if Snyder prevails will cost money.

 

Get inside an NFL owners head. What’s important to them? Making money, winning and preserving their brand value. You think because Snyder’s rich that making money is no longer a priority? You don’t know many rich business people do you. A long drawn out debate in the media or in courts on this doesn’t help Snyder achieve these goals. The Redskin brand is being hurt by this debate without a doubt.

My advice to Snyder would be to get out in front of this thing before the terms of the name change are dictated to him by a court, the government or the league. He could stand to lose the opportunity to use the Redskin name in any celebration of the great history of the franchise. It’s better for him to resolve this on his terms and on his timeline rather than somebody else’s.

I’d advise Snyder to begin to move privately toward a name change. That would include preparing to defend the use of the Redskin name as a part of the history of the team and working with the league to support this. I’d also advise him that there is a significant revenue opportunity for him in team merchandise. How many jersey sales of both old and new could be sold? How many other commemorative items could be produced and sold? Even documentaries could be produced. There is no better way to increase the value of something than to give it greater historical meaning. The name change would create huge demand for Redskins stuff old and new. Can you imagine how many RGIII jerseys could be sold? I’d further advise him that the fans will be the toughest group to win over but getting them involved in picking the next mascot name would be a positive. Heck many of the real Redskin fans have died since the team last won anything. Kinda like Bills fans. Younger fans are less attached to the Redskin name.

You Levi, as Snyder’s trusted advisor are putting yourself and him in a lose, lose, lose situation. If he takes your advice and never is forced to change the name, a big marketing opportunity is missed. If he takes your advice and is then forced to change the name, you’re fired! If he takes my advice then that means he didn’t like yours and again you’re fired!

Levi Brown, Levi Johnston? You must be a guy with a limp arm, a hard dick and a soft brain. Don’t be dumb Levi. Get on board.

[LeviF]

We agree, tradition is meaningful. Unfortunately for Snyder somebody else may be in a position to take it away from him or tarnish it significantly. Let’s put our business advisor hats on and offer Mr. Snyder some advice. That’s OK Levi if you don’t own one of those hats. You can borrow one of mine. So far your only argument is basically that it’s Snyder’s team, it’s up to him what name is used and that the term “Redskin” isn’t offensive so he shouldn’t worry about it. You’re saying that Native Americans for the most part don’t really care. Look up the Redskin term as it was used in North America and you’ll find that it’s a reference by the white man to Indians that were scalped. No doubt it’s a derogatory and racist term. The Chicago Blackhawk name is simply a tribe name and has no derogatory meaning. Big difference.

 

4merper4mer is right, you're swinging alright. Swinging and missing. The name "redskin" has nothing to do with scalping. Red became a color label in the 19th century, like black and white. Would you be offended if they changed their name to the Washington Whiteskins and made some honkey their mascot? I think not.

 

Still Levi you’re completely missing the big picture here. Pressure to change the name isn’t likely to come from Native Americans. Heck they make up less than 1% of the population and in the Washington area market less than .5% of the population. Pressure to change is coming and will come from several other sources. Here’s a few of them.

 

Pressure isn't likely to come from Native Americans not because of their small population (they have a loud voice regardless of their population size) but because they don't care. Neither should we.

 

1. The liberal race sensitive media. Dozens of articles have been written on the topic in recent weeks with the vast majority clamoring for Snyder to change the name. Unfortunately for Snyder it’s good for the media business to create a story here even if it’s not all that important. Expect it to continue. Good grief several TV analysts have already adopted a policy of not using the Redskin name when talking about the football team in DC. . More will follow.

 

This has happened before, many times. And it blows over every time. This is no different. The liberal media and their ilk (read: you) will get back to wetting their pants over Vlad Putin any day now.

 

2. Snyder’s insurance company. Insurance companies hate needless risk. Snyder’s liability carrier has to be looking at this and could raise rates or drop coverage over the matter.

 

You're reaching so far up your ass for this stuff that you can bite your fingernails. Liability carrier? Really? Liability for what? As far as courts go, this issue has been shot down so many times it thinks it's Black Kettle. Non-issue.

 

3. NFL management. No doubt the NFL is a very racially sensitive organization. Just look at all the diversity policies they’ve adopted in recent years. Hiring of coaches, hiring of analysts on the NFL network and the support of minority youth organizations. Goodell himself has moved his position on this matter from defending the Redskin name to now saying it’s up to Mr. Snyder. The league sees the derogatory Redskin name as counter to it’s diversity efforts. What do you think is the conversation on this in private between Roger and Dan?

 

What do I think the conversation on this is? I don't care. And neither does Dan Snyder.

 

4. Snyder’s fellow NFL owners will pressure him if the media buzz gets too loud. It’s one less headache for the league.

 

Most NFL owners aren't as delicate as you seem to be.

 

5. Politicians are now getting involved. Obama has weighed in suggesting the name be changed and civil rights groups are lobbying members of Congress. This thing is gaining traction.

 

6. The court of public opinion. Since the majority of the news on the topic is negative toward the Redskin name, Snyder is losing public support.

 

Obama weighed in because he was asked directly. And civil rights groups have been at this for years, making no progress except to make a little bit of a stink every year. Again, who cares?

 

And public opinion is still firmly on Snyder's side, with 70% of Americans believing that the name should not be changed.

 

7. Lawyers. Lawyers will advise Snyder of his rights and the risks in keeping the Redskin name. Defending more suits on this matter even if Snyder prevails will cost money.

 

And if Snyder doesn't keep fighting he could lose millions in merchandise sales that he's already made. If they lose the federal trademark on the name in a lawsuit, Snyder and the franchise will get screwed faster than trailer trash on prom night. Not caving on the name actually helps him in the legal battle and on the merchandise sales he's already made, not just on some future merchandise sales that you've conjured up in your mind. This legal battle over the trademark continues even after your fairy tale of creating documentaries and **** based on the name.

 

You Levi, as Snyder’s trusted advisor are putting yourself and him in a lose, lose, lose situation. If he takes your advice and never is forced to change the name, a big marketing opportunity is missed. If he takes your advice and is then forced to change the name, you’re fired! If he takes my advice then that means he didn’t like yours and again you’re fired!

 

No, I've put him in a situation where he's completely in control of the matter, can fight from a position of strength on the trademark battle, and where he doesn't look like a pansy who grabbed his ankles for the sake of the liberal media. You've put him in a position where he looks like a pliable panty waist because, according to you, the media and the public are already in front on this. If he takes your advice, he'll look like a pile of putty limping in with a compromise to try and save face.

 

He will never be forced to change the name. Precedent is on his side, he just needs to fight a little longer.

 

Levi Brown, Levi Johnston? You must be a guy with a limp arm, a hard dick and a soft brain. Don’t be dumb Levi. Get on board.

 

And, evidently, you're the guy with soft arms, a hard head, and a limp dick. Levi is the tribe of priests and teachers, and I've been taking your ass back to school for this entire debate.

[keepthefaith]

OK, so you’ve lobbed a few scud-like barbs – none of which have damaged your opponent or supported your position well. Hooray for you!

 

I admire your consistency and cro-magnon hard headedness. You’re simply taking the sitting bull position on this. He won some battles and ultimately was attacked by his own people. That’s where Snyder sits right now. Every point you try to make is simply more of the same “ain’t gonna do it” mentality.

 

Snyder may win some battles along the way but ultimately the league and the other owners (who care mostly about their own interests) will pressure Snyder into doing it. Here’s Goodell recently: "If we are offending one person," Goodell, the NFL commissioner, said last month, "we need to be listening." Uh oh!

 

The debate we’re having is not if the Redskins must change their name. It’s whether or not they should. Your position is “no way, not gonna do it” but “no way, not gonna do it” has limits. Lawsuits, political pressure, court of public opinion and league interests all stand to chip away at the waning support for the Redskin name. At some point this thing reaches the tipping point and then Snyder’s hand will be forced. Your position is the same as his which is really “I’ll never change the name until I have to”. I would agree that he doesn’t have to now, but again the debate is “should” it be changed.

 

The smart play is to move slowly in the direction toward a name change and capitalize on the many positive PR and marketing opportunities that this presents. There’s a big swing from that position to the “I’ll never change the name until I have to” position. Right now Snyder has time on his side and he should take advantage of that. He’ll burn up a lot of money, energy and brand capital defending this thing. This is big business with a big reach. The smart play is to solve this thing in the PC fashion even if it tastes bad. Frankly I’d be as stubborn publically as Snyder has been, but privately I’d be putting together the transition plan.

 

As for this competition we’re having, I think your best bet Levi is to get down on your knees and pray to the mighty judge for double elimination. That’s your only chance to continue. You’re getting clubbed like a baby seal. Have you seen the posts in the PPP showdown thread? They're talking about charity golf tournaments. Levi, you're boring them to death with your drivel. You have made me laugh though. So has the judge. I posted all that far fetched crap in the first post and you both bought it. You responded to all of it. Now I’ve taken a shot at the judge which could get me DQ’d, but I think the judge is tougher than that. Time to end this thing. You’re a sitting duck in the next round.

[keepthefaith]

My position is that the Redskins should change their name before they are forced to do it. Your position is that the Redskins will only change their name when they are forced to do it so in your own stubborn way, you are arguing my point. We just disagree on the timing and the trigger for the name change. Have you looked at espn.com today? Your buddy Dan Snyder is fighting back pretty hard which means the pressure is increasing. Remember how the Republicans last year said they would never vote to raise taxes on anyone including the upper wage earners? What happened there? Never believe never my friend. Never plan for never either.

Edited October 9, 2013 by keepthefaith

[4merper4mer]

Winner: LeviF91.

 

There is good news for keepthefaith however. For the details see the main thread.