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

[nmmetsfan]

I am offended by OOP's repeated idiocy on this issue. Can something be done to stop it? Can we take away his birthday or something?

 

[outofplace]

I am offended by OOP's repeated idiocy on this issue. Can something be done to stop it? Can we take away his birthday or something?

Many days later and back-to-back posts and that is the best you can come up with? No wonder you need somebody to explain to you that bigotry is wrong.

 

[nmmetsfan]

Sorry I didn't live on this site over the weekend. Now you have the reading comprehension issue. I said bigotry was wrong. Never said otherwise.

 

[Hokie_pokie]

It's laughable how ridiculous this entire premise is and the people on this board trying to claim this is a civil rights issue akin to voting rights and segregation are just as dumb as the hicks who scream "freedom of speech!" anytime someone gets fired for saying something stupid.

That's not what I was doing. I was refuting your argument that the magnitude of the racism matters when determining how offensive it is. And, the absolute forking ridiculousness of polling white people about it. Of course a vast majority of people the slur is not directed at won't see what the big deal is.

Most of the rest of what you wrote is not really worth a response. I will, however, add one more time that NO ONE IS FORCING DAN SNYDER TO CHANGE THE NAME. This is a court decision to pull the REDSKINS TRADEMARKS because law says you cannot trademark something that uses disparaging language, therefore the team will no longer receive federal trademark protection. Dan Snyder is still free to use the name, and you are still free to support or not support the team.

This was a trademark challenge brought by FIVE NATIVE AMERICANS (not a legion of easily offended automatons heck-bent on pussifying this country), which in case you've forgotten, is the group the slur is meant to denigrate. They used the legal process to challenge the TRADEMARK PROTECTION and a court sided with them. That's despite the Redskins' best efforts to lobby politicians and attempt to buy off Native Americans to win support.

Maybe you're the one who needs to do some reading up.

Just wanted to chime in and say, "Game, set and match, Creosote."

And to add, anyone who thinks Daniel Snyder is fighting this fight for any other reason than to be a massive dickhead needs to wake up.

This is a guy who is used to having everything just the way he wants it. People kiss his ass and twist themselves into pretzels trying to please him. He has demonstrated on many occasions, for anyone who was paying attention, that he is a spoiled, mean-spirited piece of shirt who doesn't care about anyone other than himself.

Snyder knows that changing the name is the right thing to do. He knows that whatever short-term financial hit he takes will be more than made up over the long haul in positive PR for himself and the franchise. But he's not gonna do it. He'll never give up the fight.

Know why: He just doesn't want to.

He's still that nerdy little kid wearing his Redskins belt buckle. He loves that forking belt buckle, probably more than he loves his wife. If it offends anyone, well, that's just too bad.

Defend him at your peril.

 

[Mark2010]

Oh, some folks here are always good for a good laugh.

A wise old man long ago said that only little people need to resort to name-calling. So whatever names you choose to use really doesn't bother me. I can count on one hand the number of people from this board whom I have ever met in person (none of whom have posted on this thread). People that know me, know me and they don't call names. So whose opinion carries more weight? Someone who knows you or someone whom you have never met?

It's amusing that whatever the initial thread topic, it often seems to turn into a personal pissing match between certain parties. And we all know which names are on the short list of those most likely to be involved.

Don't like someone or their views about life? Well, then maybe journalism isn't your thing, because you end up meeting all sorts of strange characters in the world in the process. I mean, are you really so naïve as to think everyone is going to agree with you on every single topic? ReallY?

So go ahead and call all the names you want if it makes your ego feel a little better. Heaven knows I've been called worse over the years. There are far worse things I'd rather be called than "racist". (Funny how those who claim to decry various slurs have no problem using such terms themselves.)

It's funny how some people will brand someone as something and that then somehow poisons everything they say or touch. We can be having a discussion about cars or politics or football or something totally unrelated. I may offer an opinion and immediately that opinion becomes "wrong" simply because someone doesn't want to think of themselves as agreeing with Mark, that terrible, horrible racist/homophobe/(insert slur here).

 

[Double J]

It's funny how some people will brand someone as something and that then somehow poisons everything they say or touch.

Seems to me that nobody gets branded around here unless they encourage it or bring it on themselves. Don't say racist or homophobic things if you don't want people to think you're a racist or a homophobe. Pretty simple.

And, for somebody who claims to not care about the opinions of those who don't like you and/or at least some of your remarks, you certainly don't have a problem regaling us with your own opinions, worthless as they may be. Guess it's a wash, eh?

 

[Walter Lippmann]

Oh, some folks here are always good for a good laugh.

A wise old man long ago said that only little people need to resort to name-calling. So whatever names you choose to use really doesn't bother me. I can count on one hand the number of people from this board whom I have ever met in person (none of whom have posted on this thread). People that know me, know me and they don't call names. So whose opinion carries more weight? Someone who knows you or someone whom you have never met?

It's amusing that whatever the initial thread topic, it often seems to turn into a personal pissing match between certain parties. And we all know which names are on the short list of those most likely to be involved.

Don't like someone or their views about life? Well, then maybe journalism isn't your thing, because you end up meeting all sorts of strange characters in the world in the process. I mean, are you really so naïve as to think everyone is going to agree with you on every single topic? ReallY?

So go ahead and call all the names you want if it makes your ego feel a little better. Heaven knows I've been called worse over the years. There are far worse things I'd rather be called than "racist". (Funny how those who claim to decry various slurs have no problem using such terms themselves.)

It's funny how some people will brand someone as something and that then somehow poisons everything they say or touch. We can be having a discussion about cars or politics or football or something totally unrelated. I may offer an opinion and immediately that opinion becomes "wrong" simply because someone doesn't want to think of themselves as agreeing with Mark, that terrible, horrible racist/homophobe/(insert slur here).

You're the same dude who was offended that you had to interview a lesbian. At least you've been good about keeping quiet about some of your exploits as a journalist. Eyes up!

 

[MisterCreosote]

Damn, Jake, that's become such a pat answer. No, you don't not read those posts. They're in the stream of the thread. Ignore? No, then you're looking at the person you ignored in case they said something that added to the thread.

That's NOT the answer. And I understand if you can't separate his views on race from his views on everything else, but we can disagree. And I certainly don't see it as some sort of badge of honor.

You don't know what the word "ignore" means.

 

[SEC Guy]

How about the D.C. Putos

 

[Double J]

Better idea:

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

It is an SportsJournalists.com-esque Appeal to Authority by Dickie's favorite journal of opinion,
but here is a linguist on why the name is deeply offensive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/a-linguist-on-why-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/

 

[outofplace]

Sorry I didn't live on this site over the weekend. Now you have the reading comprehension issue. I said bigotry was wrong. Never said otherwise.

Actually, you argued that it is only wrong because the majority decided it is wrong. So by your thinking, any form of bigotry that has the approval of the majority would be just fine. Really, you should try to understand the words you are typing a little better before you click "post" next time.