Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rival Team Forum' started by The Benjamin, Jun 18, 2014.
The USPTO is staffed with politicians and a president and has an effect on overseas terrorists?
The government decided that ‘Redskins’ bothers you
Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo who successfully moved a federal agency to withdraw trademark protections from the Washington Redskins because it considers the team’s name derogatory, lives on a reservation where Navajos root for the Red Mesa High School Redskins. She opposes this name; the Native Americans who picked and retain it evidently do not.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted on a 1946 law banning trademarks that “may disparage” persons. “May” gives the agency latitude to disregard evidence regarding how many people actually feel disparaged or feel that others should feel disparaged. Blackhorse speaks of “the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this.” This would seem implausible even if a 2004 poll had not found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins’ name. A 2013 AP-GfK poll showed that 79 percent of Americans of all ethnicities opposed changing it, and just 18 percent of “nonwhite football fans” favored changing it.
The federal agency acted in the absence of general or Native American revulsion about “Redskins,” and probably because of this absence. Are the Americans who are paying attention to this controversy comfortable with government saying, in effect, that if people are not offended, they should be, so government must decide what uses of language should be punished?
In today’s regulatory state, agencies often do pretty much as they please, exercising discretion unconstrained by law.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that in 2004 the Federal Election Commission held that the anti-George W. Bush movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” did not need to be regulated as an “electioneering communication” but in 2008 held that the hostile “Hillary: The Movie” was such a communication. In the regulatory state, the rule of law is the rule that law barely limits regulators’ discretion.
Although the death penalty clearly was not considered a “cruel and unusual” punishment when the Eighth Amendment proscription of such punishments was adopted, perhaps society’s “evolving standards of decency” have brought this punishment under the proscription. Standards of decency do evolve: No sports team launched today would select the name “Redskins.” Although Thomas Sowell is correct that “some people are in the business of being offended, just as Campbell is in the business of making soup,” the fact that some people are professionally indignant does not mean offense may be given promiscuously to others.
She says “someone” once told her that teams’ mascots “are meant to be ridiculed,” “to be toyed with,” “to be pushed around and disrespected” and “have stuff thrown at them.” She should supplement the opinion of that someone with information from persons more knowledgeable. But she considers “any team name that references Native Americans” an injurious “appropriation of our culture.” Has an “appropriation” been committed by the University of Utah and Florida State University even though they have the approval of the respective tribes for their teams’ nicknames, the Utes and Seminoles?
William Voegeli, a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes that the kerfuffle over an NFL team’s name involves serious matters. They include comity in a diverse nation, civil discourse, and “not only how we make decisions, but how we decide what needs to be decided, and who will do the deciding.”
When two Oregon bakers chose, for religious reasons, not to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, an Oregon government official explained why tolerance meant coercing the bakers: “The goal is to rehabilitate.” Tolerance required declaring the bakers’ beliefs and practices intolerable. We are going to discover whether a society can be congenial while its government is being coercive regarding wedding cakes and team names.
And now.... the PC nazi's are going after Wahoo. Once they've skinned him, they'll march on to Atlanta.
The braves only have an image of a tomahawk.
Then there is the tomahawk chop that the fans do. That, they will never get rid of.
What society doesn't realize is you open a whole can of issues when you cave in to one person.
I'll have to find the article from a couple of years ago, but like 9 out of 10 indians aren't bothered by the term Redskins. In fact there were a lot that are fans of that team.
This is turning into a country of people who want to have their opinion heard. Regardless of whether it REALLY offends them.
Remember the days of thick skin, or sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt me?
Now we are teaching kids to have thin skin. Toughen the fuck up, and get ready to be an adult.
We wonder why there are so many shootings. It's because people can't handle stress.
For example, why can't we use someone's skin color to identify someone? If you say they are black, your being racist.
This whole Redskins name is much deeper than the name. It's about being PC, and lets face it, we are creating (created) a society that is sensitive.
We wonder why Americans aren't taken seriously around the world anymore. even Mexico is crossing our border and firing at our border patrol. WTF?
Here's one article that was a couple of days ago..
Another three tribes..
Here's the BIGGEST question, if indians aren't really bothered by it, why are WE bothered by it?
I hate it when people who can't DIRECTLY relate to an issue, take that issue up as if they know how it feels.
For instance, Harry Reid taking offense to the term Redskins? WTF?
Stop being "offended" because you think that's what people want to hear.
why aren't black peole going after AUNT Jemima ? hopefully I gave no one an idea