Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Oxford Dictionary: Redskin
Comments
-
I suppose I am effectively boycotting them since other than Oklahoma being a net receiver of federal funding I don't support them in any way.topdawgnc said:
Do you advocate on the fact numerous high schools, in Indian country, still have that mascot?Mad_Son said:Yeah, I dunno, I just don't find it compelling. Lots of people have done it for a long time and inertia keeps it in place. I recognize that not every "native american" finds it offensive and some do. This is such a low priority on my list of issues and while do I think the Redskins should change their name, I don't really care to advocate one way or another. I do advocate against basing anything on the opinion of a high schooler though.
Help me understand why we are not boycotting those schools?
If the name was selected by various tribesfolk I would consider that meaningful. Just having the name means that there isn't enough pushback to change it. I recognize there is not a complete uproar against it. -
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets? -
I don't know intellectual property law so I don't know if it is legal to trademark "offensive" names.PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point here.
There's also the common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not.
Just because the government protects a right to be racist through the first amendment doesn't mean you should be racist. Again you are falling back on these market-based arguments. The market may be racist. There are a lot of racists in America. If you are one of them that is fine. I am not telling you that you can't be and I am not telling you that you don't have a right to be racist. I am not sure that the existence of other racists justifies racism though. -
This is where we digress into the absurdity of the government forcing the citizenry to use their assets to obtain health insurance...PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets? -
Well I guess that answers the question "Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets?".....or maybe not. I'm too baked to remember right now.Blackie said:
This is where we digress into the absurdity of the government forcing the citizenry to use their assets to obtain health insurance...PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets? -
So people who attend Redskin games are racist now?Mad_Son said:
I don't know intellectual property law so I don't know if it is legal to trademark "offensive" names.PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point here.
There's also the common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not.
Just because the government protects a right to be racist through the first amendment doesn't mean you should be racist. Again you are falling back on these market-based arguments. The market may be racist. There are a lot of racists in America. If you are one of them that is fine. I am not telling you that you can't be and I am not telling you that you don't have a right to be racist. I am not sure that the existence of other racists justifies racism though.
-
Only the Redskin fans.PurpleJ said:
So people who attend Redskin games are racist now?Mad_Son said:
I don't know intellectual property law so I don't know if it is legal to trademark "offensive" names.PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point here.
There's also the common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not.
Just because the government protects a right to be racist through the first amendment doesn't mean you should be racist. Again you are falling back on these market-based arguments. The market may be racist. There are a lot of racists in America. If you are one of them that is fine. I am not telling you that you can't be and I am not telling you that you don't have a right to be racist. I am not sure that the existence of other racists justifies racism though.
-
Go on....Blackie said:
This is where we digress into the absurdity of the government forcing the citizenry to use their assets to obtain health insurance...PurpleJ said:
Yeah. They're called hate speech laws or something. I'm not really sure if they apply here, but I am sure that if they did we wouldn't need to be going through the Patent Office to change the name based on those laws.Mad_Son said:
So if there are enough racists to support an NFL team then it isn't racist?PurpleJ said:
When did I say it was? All I was saying is that the market would have made it obvious by now if the name was that offensive.Mad_Son said:Since when is the market the most important power in the land?
The point is that they could name the team the Washington Niggers if the NFL would allow it. The government has no say here. 1st Amendment.
I am not a legal scholar but there may be provisions in various laws against disparaging ethnic groups. Regardless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
There used to be a time in this country where we would protect neo Nazis (!!!!) with police escorts while they held rallies, because we were THAT serious about protecting the 1st Amendment. I think you may be missing the point.
There's also a common sense argument here. The owner paid for his team with his money and he can do what he damn well pleases with it. If the name is offensive, his business will suffer. Obviously it's not. Since when can the government tell someone what to do with their own assets?
I'm listening
-
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
-
Salient poast, except for the "most of you ignorant fucks don't the shit I know" shit.MikeDamone said:
It's not really something that would be protected under the fist amendment as far as the trademark goes. I don't think most of you know what that right entails....that said, the government telling a private business what it can call itself is fucked up and should scare the fuck out of you, should that ever happen.PurpleJ said:For the record, I don't give a shit if it's offensive or not. It's no ones business but the owner of the team, and the government shouldn't be restricting free speech by refusing the patent on the grounds that it is "disparaging Native Americans". What a load of horse shit. If people don't like his team they can boycott the fucking team. The market would have decided by now if it was that big of an issue. This is nothing but a power move by the libs to give credence to their bullshit about caring about diversity. Give me a break.
