Redskins facing severe pressure to change name.

[HardyBoy]

14 hours ago, Happy said:

 

Hide behind a BS poll?  Agenda?  Negative to both.  Speaking of agendas, the article you linked was written by a lady with an agenda.  She didn't like the age of the people polled, she didn't like the region they were polled, not enough women were polled, those polled were not Indian enough for her, and on and on.  The NBC Sports article which references the Washington Post poll was conducted nationwide with a sample size of 500 native americans.  I'm not sure why this isn't good enough for some.  If there was a majority of those polled who took offense to the team name 'Redskins' the Washington Post would be among the first to suggest changing the name since they are not exactly a conservative newspaper, they are actually quite liberal.

 

You got me, I'm intent on using a slur and it is really important to me...guess what I'm thinking right now, since you know my motives and all.  How you arrived at this conclusion is perplexing.  The Redskins team name has been around since 1933; I find it amazing that the super woke people are intent on changing a traditional name, which was not intended on being a slur, within just the past few years.  Why all the new "enlightened" types need to impose yourselves in areas you should not be concerned with is annoying since the vast majority of you all are most likely not even .01% native american.

 

What question did you pose that I haven't answered?  I don't recall anything of significance.  The only thing BS are the two articles you linked.

 

Let me guess, you're thrilled with social distancing, being locked up at home, and this was the best 4th of July you could ever have imagined.

 

Do you understand what a representative sample is and how it is necessary for a poll of like 500 people to be representative of a larger population? She had an issue with the sampling method because it did not generate a representative sample, so pretending that data speaks to anyone but the specific group polled is spreading an agenda (gaslighting at its finest right there) and you say she has an agenda...no dude, there is long standing proven math that shows how to pick representative samples. Your opinion means jack when it comes to picking a representative sample.  You can have a sample of 100,000 people and it might not be a representative sample...the size of a sample has nothing to do with how representative it is...a bit counterintuitive, but very much true.

 

If you are trying to take a small number of people in a poll and apply their answers to build a model that predicts how the total group will respond, you need that model to be representative of the overall population. If you have a sample of 100 people and only 5% are women, but the overall population has 60% women in it (hypothetical example, not sure what the breakout in that poll was), someone saying that is a faulty non-representative sample doesn't have an agenda that's mathematical/statistical facts...the people misusing science have the agenda, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker...as George Carlin would say "they got ya by the balls"

Edited July 5, 2020 by HardyBoy

[Rico]

24 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Snyder can make heads explode if he announces that the team will adopt a new name to be determined by the highest corporate bidder. 

Washington Nikes, with Kaep back in the league as lead promo man. Win-Win.

[machine gun kelly]

Rico, you’re keeping the laughs going.  Ridgeway, Warcodered, where are you guys?   You’re my comedic relief on the weekend.

[BarleyNY]

14 hours ago, Happy said:

 

Hide behind a BS poll?  Agenda?  Negative to both.  Speaking of agendas, the article you linked was written by a lady with an agenda.  She didn't like the age of the people polled, she didn't like the region they were polled, not enough women were polled, those polled were not Indian enough for her, and on and on.  The NBC Sports article which references the Washington Post poll was conducted nationwide with a sample size of 500 native americans.  I'm not sure why this isn't good enough for some.  If there was a majority of those polled who took offense to the team name 'Redskins' the Washington Post would be among the first to suggest changing the name since they are not exactly a conservative newspaper, they are actually quite liberal.

 

You got me, I'm intent on using a slur and it is really important to me...guess what I'm thinking right now, since you know my motives and all.  How you arrived at this conclusion is perplexing.  The Redskins team name has been around since 1933; I find it amazing that the super woke people are intent on changing a traditional name, which was not intended on being a slur, within just the past few years.  Why all the new "enlightened" types need to impose yourselves in areas you should not be concerned with is annoying since the vast majority of you all are most likely not even .01% native american.

 

What question did you pose that I haven't answered?  I don't recall anything of significance.  The only thing BS are the two articles you linked.

 

Let me guess, you're thrilled with social distancing, being locked up at home, and this was the best 4th of July you could ever have imagined.

You asked why you should be considered racist if you use the word “Redskins”.   I am simply asking for you to explain why it’s so important to you that you be able to use a word that many consider a racial slur when a different, inoffensive word could easily be used in its place?

[Saxum]

31 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Or just go with a red skinned potato as a mascot and logo.   Think of the new sponsor, Land O Lakes butter with the Indian on the package. 

 

The Indian maiden is gone from the Land O Lakes butter.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/landolakes-logo-change-trnd/index.html#:~:text=The new package of Land,blue lake from its products.

[HardyBoy]

I personally have a problem with the use of that team name.

 

It represents a time of genocide and imperialism that our nation perpetrated on a entire race of people who had claim on the land. It's no different really than what the Nazi's did, and in in some ways it was way worse...imagine if the Nazis won the war and could expand across the entire USA unchecked.

 

Then, when the actual hot war with the native Americans ended, we shifted to rounding up an entire civilization into reservations that were basically concentration camps with a palatable name. Then we abducted their children and sent them to boarding schools to become "civilized" against their wishes. We outlawed their customs, their traditions, we spat on them in the street, we raped their women so they would have white babies, and we made their children ashamed of their history.

 

And then, when all that was said and done, we appropriated their culture. We turned them into cartoons. We raised our children believing we loved the native Americans the entire time, and that Custer was a hero, and it was our manifest destiny to murder, rape, pillage and destroy a civilization. The only book that that manifest destiny came from by the way was the checkbook.

 

The use of the culturally appropriated names and customs THAT WE BANNED Native Americans from practicing, were a calculated propaganda movement by the wealthy elites to change the narrative and make people think anyone saying we destroyed a civilazation is just a nut job, because we know the intent isn't to shame them, because our puppet masters tell us we did it out of love, because there is no intent of hate in our use of culturally appropriated images and tropes.

 

The right emotion here isn't indifference or talking about your intent. The right emotion is shame and embarrassment that our country perpetrated a civilazation sized genocide and is trying to hide it in plain sight through turning this into a cartoon. In Germany they say never forget...we we've clearly forgotten. 

 

This is the rinse and repeat of white European (and unfortunately American) imperialism that has been going on for centuries, and no I'm not ok with that. All the names need to change, becsuae the only slippery slope there is is keeping any of those names, because it allows us to pretend we are not guilty as a nation of genocide and have not come anywhere close to making amends for that.

[Happy]

47 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

You asked why you should be considered racist if you use the word “Redskins”.   I am simply asking for you to explain why it’s so important to you that you be able to use a word that many consider a racial slur when a different, inoffensive word could easily be used in its place?

 

I, as well as probably the entire sports world, do not intend offense to native americans when the Washington football team is addressed as 'Redskins.'  The name/word is very old and is pretty much retired from the english language.  It is used only in a sports connotation, that is it.  The team has been known as the Washington Redskins since 1937 and it is a tradition.  It does not appear that there is good reason to change the the tradition of the name, or address the team differently, since (again) it is used in as sports context.  Last word on this.

1 hour ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Do you understand what a representative sample is and how it is necessary for a poll of like 500 people to be representative of a larger population? She had an issue with the sampling method because it did not generate a representative sample, so pretending that data speaks to anyone but the specific group polled is spreading an agenda (gaslighting at its finest right there) and you say she has an agenda...no dude, there is long standing proven math that shows how to pick representative samples. Your opinion means jack when it comes to picking a representative sample.  You can have a sample of 100,000 people and it might not be a representative sample...the size of a sample has nothing to do with how representative it is...a bit counterintuitive, but very much true.

 

If you are trying to take a small number of people in a poll and apply their answers to build a model that predicts how the total group will respond, you need that model to be representative of the overall population. If you have a sample of 100 people and only 5% are women, but the overall population has 60% women in it (hypothetical example, not sure what the breakout in that poll was), someone saying that is a faulty non-representative sample doesn't have an agenda that's mathematical/statistical facts...the people misusing science have the agenda, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker...as George Carlin would say "they got ya by the balls"

 

She was whining because she didn't like the poll, period.

 

Are you native american?  No?  Your opinion means jack.  If you don't like the team being addressed as the Redskins, then you should probably find something else to do on Sunday afternoons.

[Numark3]

6 hours ago, Happy said:

 

Ok, buttercup.  Go color with your box of 64 crayons.

go read 1972 articles about this and ramble like an old man about our new generation being woke.  

[Saxum]

5 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

go read 1972 articles about this and ramble like an old man about our new generation being woke.  

 

Happy read?  Are you crazy?

[Warcodered]

11 minutes ago, Happy said:

She was whining because she didn't like the poll, period.

 

Are you native american?  No?  Your opinion means jack.  If you don't like the team being addressed as the Redskins, then you should probably find something else to do on Sunday afternoons.

 

On 7/4/2020 at 10:49 AM, Warcodered said:

 

 

On 7/4/2020 at 10:57 AM, Warcodered said:

 

 

[HardyBoy]

9 minutes ago, Happy said:

 

I, as well as probably the entire sports world, do not intend offense to native americans when the Washington football team is addressed as 'Redskins.'  The name/word is very old and is pretty much retired from the english language.  It is used only in a sports connotation, that is it.  The team has been known as the Washington Redskins since 1937 and it is a tradition.  It does not appear that there is good reason to change the the tradition of the name, or address the team differently, since (again) it is used in as sports context.  Last word on this.

 

She was whining because she didn't like the poll, period.

 

Are you native american?  No?  Your opinion means jack.  If you don't like the team being addressed as the Redskins, then you should probably find something else to do on Sunday afternoons.

 

Wait, are you native American?

 

And my opinion doesn't mean jack? It's like if there was a soccer team in Germany called the Berlin Bankers...you don't think non-jewish German people could feel embarrassed by that name and want it changed?

[Saxum]

5 hours ago, Raleigh • √eff said:

I could actually see the The Snyders. 

 

I hope not.  I would hate for that team to be associated with my favorite pretzels.  I actually got a tour once of Hanover factory.

 

[Troll Toll]

Maybe they should change it to the Washington Savages?

Edited July 5, 2020 by Troll Toll

[SDS]

4 minutes ago, Troll Toll said:

Maybe they should change it to the Washington Savages?

To be clear, this will never be acceptable here regardless of your user name.

[Mike in Horseheads]

14 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Wait, are you native American?

 

And my opinion doesn't mean jack? It's like if there was a soccer team in Germany called the Berlin Bankers...you don't think non-jewish German people could feel embarrassed by that name and want it changed?

Happy is very UNhappy

[Niagara]

6 hours ago, Real McNasty said:

Washington Warriors has a good feel.

Just like the Buffalo Bills is on a play on Buffalo Bill Cody, the Washington Generals would be a play on General Washington. Redskins does have a bit more bite though.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Niagara

[Niagara]

2 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

Snyder can make heads explode if he announces that the team will adopt a new name to be determined by the highest corporate bidder. 

Sell the naming rights at 5-10 yr increments. Washington New Eras

[Happy]

13 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Happy is very UNhappy

 

I'm not the one unhappy about the name Redskins.  But I'm the unhappy one...ok.

[Mike in Horseheads]

1 minute ago, Happy said:

 

I'm not the one unhappy about the name Redskins.  But I'm the unhappy one...ok.

LOL you don't get it but please carry on.

[Happy]

28 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Wait, are you native American?

 

And my opinion doesn't mean jack? It's like if there was a soccer team in Germany called the Berlin Bankers...you don't think non-jewish German people could feel embarrassed by that name and want it changed?

 

I am not native american, but I'm also not expressing any righteous indignation.

 

People like you ruin sports.  I'll leave it at that.