Redskins facing severe pressure to change name.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

Like Washington Sequoias. Sounds Indian-enough, maybe they could keep the logo.

 

Redwoods seems like the obvious choice there, no? But then they'd have to move to the other side of the country.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

We can only hope that nothing is unearthed about Buffalo Bill Cody, otherwise our name is in Jeopardy too.

[Greg S]

5 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I can’t see changing the Redskins name and not changing the Cowboys who killed them. So many other teams will need to change their name if the Redskins are forced to. That’s why I posted every NFL team should be named after a tree. 

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

We can only hope that nothing is unearthed about Buffalo Bill Cody, otherwise our name is in Jeopardy too.

 

He was merely quoting a popular rap song in those tweets!

[Rico]

Just now, Greg S said:

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

Woke heads will be busted open if they try.

[Jauronimo]

2 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

Why would they do that?

[eball]

7 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

I wonder if somewhere down the line they go after the Yankees.

 

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Why would they do that?

 

Isn't about time all of those who suffered at the hands of the Yankers are vindicated?

[Greg S]

4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Why would they do that?

 

They probably won't but during the civil war times southerners referred to the north as Yankees. Who knows what offends people these days. I could see Indians and Chiefs on the list as well.

[SirAndrew]

34 minutes ago, nucci said:

You're correct but this is a football message board. There are other sections to discuss the social issues you bring up.

Yes indeed,  I just can’t believe anyone cares that much about a team name. I don’t care what they do, and that was my opinion on this topic. I was curious what everyone thought, and discovered there’s more passion than I could ever put into something over the name of a football team. It’s all good, I shared my opinion, now I’ll sit back and watch both sides bicker. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by SirAndrew

[BarleyNY]

14 minutes ago, May Day 10 said:

They should just change it.  Redskins is pretty blatant anyway.  It doesnt bother me, but I get it.  Just sick of the yearly debate.  Get it done with so I can get used to the other name.

 

 

Im a Cleveland Indians fan.  It was the same way with the "Chief Wahoo" thing.  I told people it was a matter of time and the team better just rip the band-aid off and re-brand now... not only the Chief, but the "Indian" name.  Do it right instead of reactionary.  I just want them to change the team name because they lack an identity without Wahoo anyways, and the debate and watching everyone dig in is tiresome.

I grew up and spent most of my life in Cleveland.  Chief Wahoo was retired a couple years ago.  Even when they built The Jake/Progressive Field they didn’t put it on anything remotely permanent.  So the writing has been on the wall for a long time.  I was really surprised that they used the Wahoo caps in the World Series against the Cubs.

 

Personally I don’t care much about names and mascots.  Cleveland Spiders is fine with me.  Buffalo Bisons would be fine.  Cleveland Bulldogs would be fine.  If a name bothers a lot of people or has an offensive history/meaning, then change it.   To me it is such a a small gesture showing respect toward others.  If you don’t give respect, then you don’t deserve it back.
 

Which leads me to a question that was already dodged by one poster on here.  If there are two (or more) words for someone or something and one is offensive to a lot of people, then why insist on using the offensive one?  I’ve yet to get any answer, much less a good one. 

12 minutes ago, Greg S said:

 

They probably won't but during the civil war times southerners referred to the north as Yankees. Who knows what offends people these days. I could see Indians and Chiefs on the list as well.

Why wouldn’t Americans proudly wear a name that was only used derogatorily by traitors?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

1 hour ago, Rob's House said:

I always bring facts to the debate and I can always support them.

 

Well, that's not what I've seen.  I believe I could go back and find discussions with you where I repeatedly asked you to source your assertions and got *crickets* and repeated reiterations without said source (sorry, eventually providing a source in PPP, which I don't read, doesn't count.  there is this thing called PM).  And I see the same dynamic here - you take one poll as gospel, people bring up another poll with different results and a pretty careful rationale, and you dismiss their poll whilst banging the drum for your own POV (banging the drum...see what I did there?  har har)

 

I have no idea how you mentally morph a disinclination to debate pseudo-intellectual white dudes who have a history of blanket dismissal of the existence and impacts of racism because, well, they don't believe it exists, and because well, they can dredge up one poll from somewhere that supports their view so everyone with a different personal experience or different research is just wrong and can be disregarded in the face of their personal disbelief, into "Just believe what the TV says, do not ask for evidence, and reject all non-confirming evidence. Anyone who doesn't accept the narrative is to be dismissed out of hand. Discussion is not required, because we feel that we are right."

 

But it seems kind of illustrative of Travis Henry's point.  Do not confuse this with some form of "winning".  You can go out into the forest and "win" a debate that way with the air.

 

 

 

 

[freddyjj]

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

48 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I think every team in the NFL should just be named after a tree and be done with it. 

 

Would make stadium song choice easier:

 

[nucci]

4 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

is it offensive to the Irish? I would think they like the name...now if you said drunken...

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

 

Stay tuned for this and other classics from "Debating with a 5 year old".

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Disregard my avatar.. The Fightin' Irish?  Now if that isn't a stereotype what is?

 

And current ND teams seem to show much more diversity.  So why hasn't anyone asked ND to drop the name?

Because essentially none of the Irish or Irish-American community feels anything but pride or indifference regarding the name and there is no apparent racist intent in the history of the term and team lore.

[US Egg]

5 minutes ago, nucci said:

is it offensive to the Irish? I would think they like the name...now if you said drunken...

 

[Rob's House]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

Well, that's not what I've seen.  I believe I could go back and find discussions with you where I repeatedly asked you to source your assertions and got *crickets* and repeated reiterations without said source (sorry, eventually providing a source in PPP, which I don't read, doesn't count.  there is this thing called PM).  And I see the same dynamic here - you take one poll as gospel, people bring up another poll with different results and a pretty careful rationale, and you dismiss their poll whilst banging the drum for your own POV (banging the drum...see what I did there?  har har)

 

I have no idea how you mentally morph a disinclination to debate pseudo-intellectual white dudes who have a history of blanket dismissal of the existence and impacts of racism because, well, they don't believe it exists, and because well, they can dredge up one poll from somewhere that supports their view so everyone with a different personal experience or different research is just wrong and can be disregarded in the face of their personal disbelief, into "Just believe what the TV says, do not ask for evidence, and reject all non-confirming evidence. Anyone who doesn't accept the narrative is to be dismissed out of hand. Discussion is not required, because we feel that we are right."

 

But it seems kind of illustrative of Travis Henry's point.  Do not confuse this with some form of "winning".  You can go out into the forest and "win" a debate that way with the air.

 

 

 

 

 

I tagged you in the post and posted another study that had similar findings in the original thread. I also posted links in this one, but no matter how much evidence I provide it seems you'll always dismiss it without explanation.

 

Conspicuously absent from any of your arguments is any supporting evidence. You simply state the narrative and resort to the same sort of "argument" you've presented above. If you have empirical evidence supporting this theory I'd like to see it but you can't because it does not exist. The police brutality angle has sputtered out and morphed into a broad "systemic racism" argument because the former, as it has been characterized, is fairly easily debunked, whereas the latter can never be disproven, making its findings inherently unscientific.

 

If America was a hot bed of racism one would think there would be countless examples and empirical evidence to support the theory, yet we never get that. We get scarce helpings of anecdotal evidence, most of which is unverifiable or ambiguous, along with patronizing rhetoric that attempts to shame skeptics who refuse to believe a narrative that is at odds with all the evidence we have seen.

 

It's hard to grasp the theory of overwhelming "systemic racism" in a country where the greatest threat to ones livelihood is being perceived as having any negative perceptions regarding any minority group. It is also hard to fathom when the disparities that we are told are a product of this "systemic racism" do not seem to affect other minorities or black people who immigrate here from other countries.

 

It is hard to buy into the theory when you've seen countless accusations of racism, and the majority of those you can confirm one way or the other prove either baseless or demonstrably false. It's even harder when the same people that tell you this is an epidemic lie to you about everything else under the sun.

 

It's hard to accept that black people live under the constant strain of racism when so many black people claim to rarely if ever experience this kind of racism.

 

It's even harder to accept a theory you're not allowed to question. We're told white people can't have an opinion, unless of course they share the view that we're told is the that of black folks. Of course, if I mention a black man with an opposing view I am expressing white fragility, which is racist, because he doesn't speak for all black people - only the one's you agree with do.

 

So in essence, only those expressing the "systemic racist" theory of America are allowed to opine. All other voices need to silence themselves or be silenced.

 

[njbuff]

14 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I tagged you in the post and posted another study that had similar findings in the original thread. I also posted links in this one, but no matter how much evidence I provide it seems you'll always dismiss it without explanation.

 

Conspicuously absent from any of your arguments is any supporting evidence. You simply state the narrative and resort to the same sort of "argument" you've presented above. If you have empirical evidence supporting this theory I'd like to see it but you can't because it does not exist. The police brutality angle has sputtered out and morphed into a broad "systemic racism" argument because the former, as it has been characterized, is fairly easily debunked, whereas the latter can never be disproven, making its findings inherently unscientific.

 

If America was a hot bed of racism one would think there would be countless examples and empirical evidence to support the theory, yet we never get that. We get scarce helpings of anecdotal evidence, most of which is unverifiable or ambiguous, along with patronizing rhetoric that attempts to shame skeptics who refuse to believe a narrative that is at odds with all the evidence we have seen.

 

It's hard to grasp the theory of overwhelming "systemic racism" in a country where the greatest threat to ones livelihood is being perceived as having any negative perceptions regarding any minority group. It is also hard to fathom when the disparities that we are told are a product of this "systemic racism" do not seem to affect other minorities or black people who immigrate here from other countries.

 

It is hard to buy into the theory when you've seen countless accusations of racism, and the majority of those you can confirm one way or the other prove either baseless or demonstrably false. It's even harder when the same people that tell you this is an epidemic lie to you about everything else under the sun.

 

It's hard to accept that black people live under the constant strain of racism when so many black people claim to rarely if ever experience this kind of racism.

 

It's even harder to accept a theory you're not allowed to question. We're told white people can't have an opinion, unless of course they share the view that we're told is the that of black folks. Of course, if I mention a black man with an opposing view I am expressing white fragility, which is racist, because he doesn't speak for all black people - only the one's you agree with do.

 

So in essence, only those expressing the "systemic racist" theory of America are allowed to opine. All other voices need to silence themselves or be silenced.

 

 

The stats are produced by the FBI for everyone to plainly see, but let's ignore that facts and let's tell everyone that America truly is a racist hateful country.

 

If you can't see the truth, then there is no discussion about this totally false narrative that minorities are SEVERELY oppressed every second, every minute and every day in this country.

 

Have you oppressed minorities yourself? I know I certainly have not.

[HappyDays]

3 hours ago, Rob's House said:

This is an updated version that shows (among other things) that even as recently as 2019 only 52% of black people thought that race had hindered their ability to get ahead. 46% said it either had no effect or (17%) actually helped them.

 

This is a bizarre poll to use to make your point. Over half of black people think their race has specifically hindered them and that is the most positive result you can pull from that link. 84% of black people think racial discrimination is a major obstacle and 87% think black people are treated worse by the criminal justice system. Whatever point you're trying to make that isn't the poll to use.