Pondslider Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 For those of us who have NEVER watched even 5 seconds of Modern Family, don't read or watch ANY of the celebrity worship magazines or TV shows, and have NO idea what the show is about, please explain what you're talking about. Thanks. There's a gay couple. HOW CAN I EXPLAIN THAT TO MY HORRIBLE UGLY CHILDREN?!?!
NoSaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 For those of us who have NEVER watched even 5 seconds of Modern Family, don't read or watch ANY of the celebrity worship magazines or TV shows, and have NO idea what the show is about, please explain what you're talking about. Thanks. Also, political correctness has made this country much worse, in many different ways, than it was 30 years ago. And "PC" is exactly what's driving this whole "the name 'Redskins' offends me" movement. I hope to he!! that Daniel Snyder stays true to his word, and never changes the name. As far as family values go its a pretty solid show with a strong family presence and of course over dramatic issues causing hilarity..... What Greggy is implying is the issue is that one of the 3 couples that make up the family is gay. Otherwise, everything I've seen is pretty basic family comedy.
oman128 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I guess Lancaster and Jamestown should change their mascots name from Red Raiders,to something else.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 For those of us who have NEVER watched even 5 seconds of Modern Family, don't read or watch ANY of the celebrity worship magazines or TV shows, and have NO idea what the show is about, please explain what you're talking about. Thanks. Also, political correctness has made this country much worse, in many different ways, than it was 30 years ago. And "PC" is exactly what's driving this whole "the name 'Redskins' offends me" movement. I hope to he!! that Daniel Snyder stays true to his word, and never changes the name.
Mark Vader Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 No you're not. Shoehorning your Fox News bullet point/talking points into this discussion may seem "truthful" to you but all you are doing is reaffirming the beliefs of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum that people who get all their information from Fox News are in fact stupid. You are really losing on this one. And I don't necessarily think this is a black and white issue- as liberal as I am, I can see the argument for keeping the name. In fact, I think the Cleveland Indians logo is far more offensive than the Redskins' name. But by citing Miley Cyrus and making some preposterous argument that no one is able to follow, you are forever damaging your credibility with every post. Or you are trolling in which case, you got me and congratulations. I find that to be offensive.
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I don't understand why this is so hard for people. Intent is everything here. If the Redskins organization really meant to insult or offend Native Americans, then I could see all the resentment toward the name. However it is very clear that the organization, and most fans do not see it as an insult, and do not wish to offend Native Americans. That is where is should end. I picture you guys thinking in your heads that the people of the Redskins organization are laughing, and making crude jokes about Native Americans behind closed doors or something. It is very clearly not meant to be an insult, and the team just wants to keep the history behind it's team and name. A whole lot of words in the english meaning have different meanings. Anyone go on a crusade lately? Getting so tired of people getting offended (or being offended for others) by things that aren't meant to be offensive. "Well if you follow my strict set of stereotypical rules that clearly make logical sense in a vacuum, then obviously you are being offensive" Edited June 12, 2014 by What a Tuel
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I don't understand why this is so hard for people. Intent is everything here. If the Redskins organization really meant to insult or offend Native Americans, then I could see all the resentment toward the name. However it is very clear that the organization, and most fans do not see it as an insult, and do not wish to offend Native Americans. That is where is should end. I picture you guys thinking in your heads that the people of the Redskins organization are laughing, and making crude jokes about Native Americans behind closed doors or something. Don't confuse intentions with results. Based on the way it's been used historically, there is a group of people who are totally justified in asking that the word not be used.
eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Snyder should change the name to Rojoskins. Then battle it out w/ the PC's for round 2.
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Don't confuse intentions with results. Based on the way it's been used historically, there is a group of people who are totally justified in asking that the word not be used. Sure, they are perfectly justified in asking the organization to change their name. And the Redskins organization is perfectly justified in saying "No", in the polite and respectful manner that they have. That's where it should end. It isn't some travesty, controversy, or "national embarressment", that the whole country should be getting up in arms about (one side or another), especially the Senate. Edited June 12, 2014 by What a Tuel
NoSaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Sure, they are perfectly justified in asking the organization to change their name. And the Redskins organization is perfectly justified in saying "No", in the polite and respectful manner that they have. That's where it should end. It isn't some travesty, controversy, or "national embarressment", that the whole country should be getting up in arms about (one side or another), especially the Senate. They have the right to continued discourse. Open forums and free speech and the like. It's amusing to me that many argue that Snyder has the right to free speech so all those people upset by what he's choosing to say should shut up. (Not directed firmly at you, but to a degree) And I'd say the team has at times been shaky at best about the polite/respectful angle. In fact id say there are have been some embarrassing incidents along the way. Edited June 12, 2014 by NoSaint
ALF Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I don't think the name is disrespectful, but the NFL should survey Native Americans and go by their decision.
NoSaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I don't think the name is disrespectful, but the NFL should survey Native Americans and go by their decision. Which always brings us back to the same questions - things like what percentage do you cut it off at? Is being offensive to 49% acceptable? Then who votes, what questions do you actually ask etc.... As methodology makes a difference. I think ultimately Snyder has a choice, the 32 owners have one and sponsors have one - until one of those three radically shift their opinion, we will have the name. I think we are probably nearing a tipping point for one if not all three as the movement picks up national momentum in the last year or so. "The Washington football team won the Super Bowl" would be an incredibly uncomfortable headline for everyone involved and there are several writers/publications pledged to not put the word redskins in print any longer.
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Sure, they are perfectly justified in asking the organization to change their name. And the Redskins organization is perfectly justified in saying "No", in the polite and respectful manner that they have. Ok, I'm with you. That's where it should end. Wait, what? So if a change is important to me, I should ask those with the power to make the change (once), then let it go if they say no? Cool.
What a Tuel Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Ok, I'm with you. Wait, what? So if a change is important to me, I should ask those with the power to make the change (once), then let it go if they say no? Cool. For both you and NoSaint. Let's not pretend they haven't been asking for 30 or more years. In the more recent years, and with the momentum of the internet, it has turned into a campaign to slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization in order to further the established goal. I don't blame Native Americans for that escalation, I blame the internet who seemingly has the power to determine not only what is right or wrong, but who is good or bad as well. I also blame the Media which has declined dramatically over the years. I also blame the Senate for thinking they have some sort of responsibility to ask beg a private organization to change their name. There are a lot of real problems out there that have real impact on Native Americans lives for so many people to be so focused, and devoting so many resources to changing the name of an private organization that you don't even have to watch and is not intended to be offensive. Edited June 12, 2014 by What a Tuel
Captain Caveman Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 For both you and NoSaint. Let's not pretend they haven't been asking for 30 or more years. In the more recent years, and with the momentum of the internet, it has turned into a campaign to slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization in order to further the established goal. I don't blame Native Americans for that escalation, I blame the internet who seemingly has the power to determine not only what is right or wrong, but who is good or bad as well. I also blame the Media which has declined dramatically over the years. I also blame the Senate for thinking they have some sort of responsibility to ask beg a private organization to change their name. They have been asking for 30+ years, and you are correct that the Internet has helped give them (and everyone else) a voice. I don't understand how those things are somehow issues or problems. There are a lot of people who agree that using the term "Redskin" is insensitive and derogatory. We have the right to keep making noise indefinitely about the issue. That includes trying to gain the support of our elected officials. That's how this country is supposed to work. It seems like you're mad because they're not giving up, and attracting other people to their cause. It is my view that not giving up when you have strong convictions, and trying to get other people to see your point of view is a good thing.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Which always brings us back to the same questions - things like what percentage do you cut it off at? Is being offensive to 49% acceptable? Then who votes, what questions do you actually ask etc.... As methodology makes a difference. I think ultimately Snyder has a choice, the 32 owners have one and sponsors have one - until one of those three radically shift their opinion, we will have the name. I think we are probably nearing a tipping point for one if not all three as the movement picks up national momentum in the last year or so. "The Washington football team won the Super Bowl" would be an incredibly uncomfortable headline for everyone involved and there are several writers/publications pledged to not put the word redskins in print any longer. If you get the fans to contact the sponsors this will occur pretty quickly. It does not take a large percentage of them to make a lot of noise and noise(fear of bad publicity) is what moves sponsors. That is one of the reasons in an earlier post I suggested they may have selected the wrong venue to air their ad. I, for one, would not have known of its existence if not for this board. Edited June 12, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I don't understand why this is so hard for people. Intent is everything here. If the Redskins organization really meant to insult or offend Native Americans, then I could see all the resentment toward the name. However it is very clear that the organization, and most fans do not see it as an insult, and do not wish to offend Native Americans. I agree with this premise, but, unfortunately the larger community at large(our society), find only one meaning for certain words and they become taboo. A word such as slavery has become such a work. If it is used outside of describing the condition of African Americans before the Civil War many feign outrage, which is sad. That said, the community being noted by a given name should have the right to determine if such a name is or is not derogatory to them. It should not be another group to determine that regardless of historical precedent.
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) For both you and NoSaint. Let's not pretend they haven't been asking for 30 or more years. In the more recent years, and with the momentum of the internet, it has turned into a campaign to slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization in order to further the established goal. I don't blame Native Americans for that escalation, I blame the internet who seemingly has the power to determine not only what is right or wrong, but who is good or bad as well. I also blame the Media which has declined dramatically over the years. I also blame the Senate for thinking they have some sort of responsibility to ask beg a private organization to change their name. There are a lot of real problems out there that have real impact on Native Americans lives for so many people to be so focused, and devoting so many resources to changing the name of an private organization that you don't even have to watch and is not intended to be offensive. Let's not forget that this thread is about a television ad, placed in prime-time during the NBA finals, by the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred tribes throughout the United States including Alaska. This isn't some internet campaign, it is a very well-conceived, and expensive national spot, easily hitting seven figures, produced by Native Americans. Nor does it "slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization" in any way. Intent is not everything in this case, because intent does not erase history. Edited June 12, 2014 by Rocky Landing
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Let's not forget that this thread is about a television ad, placed in prime-time during the NBA finals, by the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred tribes throughout the United States including Alaska. This isn't some internet campaign, it is a very well-conceived, and expensive national spot, easily hitting seven figures, produced by Native Americans. Nor does it "slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization" in any way. Intent is not everything in this case, because intent does not erase history. The final shot, one could argue, does indeed attempt to demonize the Redskin organization for their continued use of the name.
Recommended Posts