-

Originally Posted by
The Benjamin
But there ARE some people offended
.000125% of those that should are. That's not enough go kick mud and get to the back of the line whiny ones.
-
-

Originally Posted by
Riczaj01
but that's your problem, you are assuming there are. b/c they should; classic lib bs.
Right..im "assuming" people are offended because people actually are, as evident by the multitude of lawsuits brought against the franchise over the years.
I'm trying//to let go//of maybe//but maybe's just so//very interesting//Oh, what a thing.
-

Originally Posted by
Riczaj01
.000125% of those that should are. That's not enough go kick mud and get to the back of the line whiny ones.
All it takes is one person to make a change. Besides, are you really going to be upset if the Redskins change their name?
-
Arsecicle
If we do this, let's take it all the way. No group is above the next. If there is atleast ONE member of the following communities that is offended, the team name must be changed:
S.D. Padres (Vatican)
Braves (Native Americans)
Yankees (originally used as a term of contempt)
Saints (Religious community)
Celtics (Irish community/stereotypical leprochaun)
Wizards (wizards are heathens in the Christian religion)
There is no half-in. Let's change everything.
I'm BACK, Jack... or something..
-
Yeah, because the BIGGEST problem in the capital, is the name of it's professional football team.
-
High Fives / Like - 3 High Fives, 0 Dislikes
-

Originally Posted by
TheBaschnagelnator
S.D. Padres (Vatican)
Saints (Religious community)
That would be up to the church. If Christians and Catholics found it offensive that secular sports were using their sacred dogma, then sure...we should change their names so as not to offend religious groups. But its still not the same since "Saint" and "Padre" are NOT derogatory terms, unlike "Redskins"
Braves (Native Americans)
Sure. Not as offensive a term as "Redskins," but still an offensive one due to past connotations.
Yankees (originally used as a term of contempt)
False. The origins of it are unclear, but the first use of it was to describe colonials. It had no negative or positive implication, it was simply a descriptor used by the British, who later went on to use it as a sign of contempt (Colonials rebelling against the crown can tend to do that). So no, "Yankees" was not an offensive term, it was merely used in derogatory fashion later by the British. Similar to how "Jew" is not offensive, it is a descriptor, but has been used in derogatory fashion.
Celtics (Irish community/stereotypical leprochaun)
Celtics is the name of a group of people from a specific location (nothing offensive about that). Leprechaun...eh...ill leave that up to the Irish.
Wizards (wizards are heathens in the Christian religion)
They are also mythological people that dont exist, you cant offend a group of people that dont exist. And even if Christians found it offensive to their religion, Basketball is not a religious activity. So they are more then welcome to preach about the dangers of paganism in sports to their congregation.
There is no half-in. Let's change everything.
Wrong again. Its called "common sense." And Common sense would hold that as a civil society, we should be able to move beyond racial stereotypes and derogatory terms for our sports teams.
I'm trying//to let go//of maybe//but maybe's just so//very interesting//Oh, what a thing.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 High Fives, 0 Dislikes
-

Originally Posted by
BULLITT
Yeah, because the
BIGGEST problem in the capital, is the name of it's professional football team.

Why do you think the Washington Bullets changed their name?
-

Originally Posted by
The Benjamin
Why do you think the Washington Bullets changed their name?
Who?
-

Originally Posted by
BULLITT
Who?
-

Originally Posted by
The Benjamin
Why do you think the Washington Bullets changed their name?
Yeah b/c THAT wasn't one of the dumbest reasons to change a name.
Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win your still messed up.
Restore the roar!