Coming soon: the NFL's D.C. Cabs?

I was meaning to get to that. You keep bringing up the possible origin of the word as if it matters. It does not. I just thought it was worth pointing out that you are trying to present it as fact when it clearly is not.

Words are not static things. Not only can the connotation of a word change, it's actual denotation can change over time. The original intent of the word is irrelevant. What it came to mean and what it means now are far more important. That was the one lesson my grad school Linguistics professor kept trying to get across to us. He liked to talk about how the words "want" and "need" had switched meanings more than once over the years.

Also, your argument swings into the territory of those who claim there is nothing wrong with the n-word because some African Americans will use it. But hey, keep on keeping that lovely company.

 

Stating the same flawed point over and over again does not make it true. The majority does not get to decide that an offensive word is not offensive. We're supposed to be smarter than that. We are supposed to realize that such thinking can get minorities trampled upon, but apparently, that is too difficult of a concept for you.

(Am I talking down to you again? Good. You are earning it.)

Back to the beginning of your statement. NOBODY is saying this is the same level of terrible as denying people equal rights. Nobody is saying the use of an offensive word as a team nickname is comparable to segregation or the denial of voting rights. You made that argument up to support your flawed argument.

That doesn't mean it isn't wrong, just that it isn't quite the same level of wrong. Insulting people isn't as bad as taking away their rights. Do you think using the n-word is as bad as taking away somebody's rights?

The number of people who are offended by the word and the logo is too small to force the Redskins to make a change on their own. That doesn't mean they don't matter. Well, that is what it seems to mean to you. If a group is small enough, fuck them. Insult them all you like. That is the argument you are making and it is a lazy, selfish and ignorant argument.

And shottie, you should be embarrassed that you actually thought schiez's post was any kind of score at all.

 

The origin of the word may not matter if it originated outside of the people it is directed toward.

It matters very much if the people we are trying to protect from the word are the ones who invented it.

What does it mean "now" . . . other than the nickname of a few sports collectives?

When was the last time you heard it uttered in an angry, perjorative way? When was the last time you saw it used as an insult? When was the last time some celebrity stepped into it by using it and then had to deal with the consequences of his actions?

A century ago it likely was used in a disparaging way by some people. It isn't anymore. The only time ANYBODY sees or hears the term is in reference to an NFL team. That's what the word has "evolved" into --- a sports nickname. Just as words can evolve from harmless to hurtful, they also can evolve from hurtful to harmless. It's not a one-way street.

 

This is like the Hegins pigeon shooters and PETA. Two groups that are not ever going to see the other side's view.

 

More dishonest, selective bullshit. You pulled one sentence out of the post and only addressed part of it.

I don't care who invented the word. It is irrelevant. Even you admit that it came to be used in a disparaging way. Is that word every applied to a Native American by a non-Native American without it being disparaging?

I have never heard the word kike used to insult a Jewish person except in the movies or in a piece on the Onion making fun of Dan Snyder. I don't know that it is used any more. I guess that means it isn't a slur any more, either, by your ridiculous thinking.

By the way, the word "kike" was taken from a Hebrew word, so I guess it couldn't have ever been a slur in the first place, right?

One more point I neglected to mention in response to your previous post. You said that people can just not watch or support the Redskins. Please, explain to us how a sports fan can cut himself or herself off entirely from ever hearing the team name or seeing the logo. Hell, I guess anybody who is offended by the team name or the logo just has to move if they happen to live in or near Washington, D.C.

 

No, I didn't. You don't even know to whom you are responding.

 

OOP, quite honestly I'm done responding to you. You bring nothing to this discussion except to say "Well, people are offended because they're offended therefore it's offensive and you should be offended because I'm offended and if you're not offended then I'm offended you're not offended so you are dumb."
Clearly you're just one of those people who get offended easily and can't get past the fact that not everyone agrees with you and instead of being a rational person who says "Well, maybe this is why we have the ability to think for ourselves," you want to try to demean people don't agree with you and dismiss them as stupid.
It's fine. I get it. That's how less intelligent people try to overcome their shortcomings in a debate. It's just a shame you don't see that. It really is.

 

Just cross over to the other side of the street and carry on. All will be well.

 

In today's politically correct world, let me just point out that Oakland Athletics is offensive to fat people, which is most of America.

 

I imagine you thought tha was funny before you hit post.

 

schiez, you've been just as rude and talked down just as much, so please spare me the hypocrisy.

I'm not dismissing you as stupid. I'm dismissing your argument as stupid. It is comical that you attack my intelligence in the same post that you demonstrate an inability to even understand what I am saying to you.

Also, I'm not offended by the word or the logo, but I understand that others are. Unlike you, I am able to sympathize with the feelings of others even if I do not share them. That seems to have escaped your vast intellect as well.

And your argument that the word is okay because the majority says so is truly stupid. And unfair. And selfish. And lazy. I'm not saying you are those things all of the time, but this particular argument of yours absolutely fits all of those terms. But hey, you are done responding. Not for the reasons you stated, but because you can't. Your argument consists of repacking the same point 10 different ways and it still doesn't hold up at all.

 

Me. Y'all are spouting enough of the same foolishness that it blended together. My bad.

Of course, you avoided the rest of my post, which figures. You don't have a response for it. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day.