And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 8:31 am

I'm an impartial outsider who is only filling time until some football starts.


Same here. Our difference is I have history** and the opinions of the supposedly aggrieved on my side. I don't mean to paint you as an SJW if you feel that's inaccurate, but they're who's on your side in this, and virtually no one and nothing else.

[edit]

**And I don't mean merely the origin of the term- in reading, it became clear there was never a definite time it was clearly and only an n-bomb level racial slur.

If you want to argue it's shallow, or corny, or whatever, we can agree, and as I've stated, if it was me, I'd have changed it by now simply based on those grounds. But to continue arguing it is and always has been an offensive racial slur is ignoring the history of its use and the opinions of those it's supposed to offend.
Last edited by burrrton on Tue May 24, 2016 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 8:33 am

NorthHawk wrote:For those of you that believe it's OK to use a term that some feel is offensive, if you were on a team or at a party where some of the people (who the term is directed at) felt what you were saying was offensive, and others didn't, would you still use the term? Would you go out of your way to insult someone to their face?
Just curious as I don't understand this desire to continue to insult someone - when alternatives are so easily found.


I brought this up on page one I think... If you wouldn't use the term to a Native Americans face that you don't know, then it's a slur. If it was this innocent word some are attempting to paint it as, then there would be no concern using it at any point, around anyone. No one really ever responded to that, but I certainly feel that's a valid question, if not the ONLY question that should be answered.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 8:44 am

Same here. Our difference is I have history and the opinions of the supposedly aggrieved on my side. I don't mean to paint you as an SJW if you feel that's inaccurate, but they're who's on your side in this, and virtually no one and nothing else


No, you have the history you want to acknowledge, and the polls you want to point out, that isn't some sort of iron clad proof of anything other than you found information to support your position.

I don't have a "side", it's fine that you do and all, but to me it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual name of Redskins, but strictly your disdain for political correctness. Honestly, that's all I really get from those affronted by the topic. They're tired of things changing because of political correctness and therefore must fight anything and everything tooth and nail, regardless of what that may mean.

Keep it, dump it, I simply don't care. However, it is a slur, or at least has been used as a slur, which IMHO makes it something that shouldn't be "promoted" and supported.

Edit: so something that wasn't initially used as a slur, isn't one? You realise that's the majority of them right? Including the n-word, the word fag etc...
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 8:50 am

HumanCockroach wrote:No, you have the history you want to acknowledge, and the polls you want to point out, that isn't some sort of iron clad proof of anything other than you found information to support your position.


Yes, I have history and polls, and of course that's not "iron clad proof", but when you have virtually nothing to rebut that, it enough to say "just leave it alone and get over it".

Also, you're right that my initial reaction to things like this is "prove it" due to the overly-PC culture we're dealing with right now, but (1) that's not an unfair demand, and (2) my stance *now* is based on a complete inability by activists to prove their claims.

[edit]

so something that wasn't initially used as a slur, isn't one?


What should be surprising to no one: it depends. Its initial meaning may or may not be relevant. You know I'm not just referring to its initial use, though, right?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 9:12 am

I suppose if I was interested in actually putting more into this I could come up with more than I've already provided, but the truth is, I'm not, nor do I believe you would honestly read any link provided. I don't have a side Burton, it's obvious you do ( or at the very least have an extremely stringent stance against anything you deem PC oriented). As such, why in the world would I invest any time attempting to show you those things? It would make no sense for me to do so, 1) because I don't have strong feelings about the name or the PC battle some seem so enamored with on both sides and 2) there's no "end game", no victory, no success, no enlightenment, no revelation etc to be had.

I honestly don't feel like it would matter what the name was, how many were offended by it, as you have "dug your heels in" and simply won't be swayed regardless ( and it seems to me, at least here in this thread, that that has little to nothing to do with the moniker Redskins, and everything to do with your feelings about today's society).
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby NorthHawk » Tue May 24, 2016 9:24 am

The newspaper poll has some major problems and was poorly designed, so any vindication derived from it is suspect at best.
That being said, if about 10% are offended, that's enough to reconsider using the slur.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 10:01 am

I suppose if I was interested in actually putting more into this I could come up with more than I've already provided, but the truth is, I'm not, nor do I believe you would honestly read any link provided.


Oh BS- based on your arguments, I'd be willing to be I've read far more than you on this subject. I provided you links earlier to a couple of pieces that are pretty representative- they don't gloss over the derogatory history (it exists), but they also don't discount that it was a widely(ish) used term without the negative implications.

Again, I know there are pieces that present the argument as completely one-sided (both for and against), but in this case, that's not reality.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit this narrative you've latched onto. Stop insulting my intelligence just because you don't like pushback.

as you have "dug your heels in" and simply won't be swayed regardless


Tell me more about digging your heels in and not being swayed, guy who ignores polling and links provided.
Last edited by burrrton on Tue May 24, 2016 10:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 10:04 am

NorthHawk wrote:The newspaper poll has some major problems and was poorly designed, so any vindication derived from it is suspect at best.


The poll was fine, if not exhaustive. The questions were *extremely* straightforward, the polling sample was not egregiously small (a few hundred more could have put them >80% accuracy, probably), and self-ID is common.

NorthHawk wrote:That being said, if about 10% are offended, that's enough to reconsider using the slur.


Good for you. Personally, when 90% tell me it's not offensive, I consider that enough to leave it alone for now.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 11:10 am

LOL yeah that's it, I don't like pushback... LMFAO... By the way, I did read your links, that's what I do. I have no doubt you have read more than I on the subject, as I have already stated, I don't care about it. ( hence I am just fine either way, and an willing to look at both sides equally), I could really care less about whether you feel strongly about the name or the PC battle / stand you decided to take. Matters not at all to me.

By definition the word is "offensive", if you don't believe me, look it up in the dictionary, beyond that who cares? I certainly don't, at least not close to the extent you do. Its a word, words don't hold power unless you let them. I don't, you obviously do. Isn't the worst thing to disagree about. I can live with it.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 11:20 am

I can live with it.


Good man. Now we just need to convince the perpetually offended activists to do the same.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby NorthHawk » Tue May 24, 2016 11:25 am

The poll was fine, if not exhaustive. The questions were *extremely* straightforward, the polling sample was not egregiously small (a few hundred more could have put them >80% accuracy, probably), and self-ID is common.


The poll relied on "Self Identifying" Native Americans - anyone could say they are. I know people who think they are natives because they are "native born" but have no indigenous ties.
Less than 50% also did not state what tribe or group they belonged to.
Both of these raise serious doubt about the accuracy of the poll.


Good for you. Personally, when 90% tell me it's not offensive, I consider that enough to leave it alone for now.


And you would continue to use that to someone's face if they told you they were offended by it?
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 11:31 am

Both of these raise serious doubt about the accuracy of the poll.


Only to those who want to discount the results. Both of those practices are extremely common.

You may be right that it's complete bunk, but there's little reason to think that any more than you'd think most polls ever conducted were similarly bunk.

And you would continue to use that to someone's face if they told you they were offended by it?


I told you this already: of course I wouldn't. Interpersonal communication is different- in those situations, only that person's opinion matters, and when speaking with or about someone personally, you don't use slang or group terms.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby RiverDog » Tue May 24, 2016 11:57 am

NorthHawk wrote:For those of you that believe it's OK to use a term that some feel is offensive, if you were on a team or at a party where some of the people (who the term is directed at) felt what you were saying was offensive, and others didn't, would you still use the term? Would you go out of your way to insult someone to their face?
Just curious as I don't understand this desire to continue to insult someone - when alternatives are so easily found.


Unless you know a person, you have to be careful of the terms you use to describe a person regardless of how you might feel about the offensiveness of terms. We once had our company attorney tell the entire company via email not to refer to him as the company lawyer, that he expected to be called either the company attorney or company spokesman. Apparently the term 'lawyer' was offensive to him.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby RiverDog » Tue May 24, 2016 12:14 pm

NorthHawk wrote:The newspaper poll has some major problems and was poorly designed, so any vindication derived from it is suspect at best.
That being said, if about 10% are offended, that's enough to reconsider using the slur.


From the Washington Post:

Surveying the Native American population is difficult because of the group’s relatively small size and the fact that many who live on reservations lack landline telephone access. A 2004 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which found 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins name, has been criticized for potentially underrepresenting Indians who live on reservations and are less likely to have landline phones, for not measuring levels of tribal membership and for only asking a single question about attitudes on the issue.

The Washington Post survey was designed to overcome challenges in surveying Native Americans by reaching a large portion of the sample through cellular phones. Roughly 95 percent of Native American adults have landline or cellular phone access in their households, and over half are cellphone-only, according to The Post’s analysis of the National Health Interview Survey. Nearly 6 in 10 Native Americans in The Post survey were interviewed on a cellular phone.

The Post survey also asked questions about tribal membership and several questions to capture attitudes toward the team’s name and the broader use of Native American imagery in sports. In addition to standardized survey interviews, The Post conducted more than two dozen follow-up interviews with survey respondents who agreed to speak with reporters during the initial survey.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ho ... story.html

It sounds to me like they tried the best they could to make it a fair poll.

To me, the key take aways from the WP poll is that 90% is a huge majority, meaning that it would take one big screw up or series of screw ups to get it even close to offsetting the majority opinion and that it shows almost exactly the same results as the previous professionally done nation wide poll in 2004 that attempted to gauge NA's as to their attitudes towards the Redskins nickname. IMO the fact that the 2004 poll and the 2016 polls show almost exactly the same results is not a coincidence.
Last edited by RiverDog on Tue May 24, 2016 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 12:15 pm

Apparently the term 'lawyer' was offensive to him.


And in such a case, HC and North, it would be consistent to both stop referring to him as a "lawyer", but be OK with the term being used elsewhere.

Or maybe you still think it doesn't matter how few it is that are offended, and that guy should be able to demand RD's Pasco Rec League basketball team be banned from calling themselves "The Dribbling Lawyers" (on grounds other than how lame it is)?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 2:29 pm

Sorry, you are making some enormous leaps there, not really interested in either those leaps, or explaining the difference between a profession and a slur again. That ground was already covered.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 3:16 pm

...or explaining the difference between a profession and a slur again.


You haven't explained anything of the sort- you've merely presented "it's a slur" as a fact then asked why someone would insist on using it.

I'll keep saying it as long as you need me to- its status as an n-bomb level racial slur is precisely what's under question.

Further, if the bar to clear for banning the term is the fact that *anyone* if offended by it, then you have to accept that RD's lawyer should be able to ban him using the term "lawyer" for his team's name- you don't get to decide what offends someone and what doesn't.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 3:20 pm

We once had our company attorney tell the entire company via email not to refer to him as the company lawyer, that he expected to be called either the company attorney or company spokesman. Apparently the term 'lawyer' was offensive to him.


Could have been numerous things. Attorney sounds more professional for one ( akin to account representative versus insurance salesman etc). Unless he stressed that the word lawyer was offensive, there's no way to know. Again not sure the correlation between a job and a slur, but it seems to be one you continue to try and make.

One refers to a race of people and one refers to a profession, much the same way you attempted to correlate a religious position with a racial subscription/ slur, they aren't the same, at least in no tangible way.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 3:24 pm

LOL whatever floats your boat Burton. If a slang word is used to derrogatorially describe a race, it's a slur. I'm not interested in your "levels of slurs" in the least.

Look up the definition. Hell read some of the links provided on this thread. The word "fag" or "WOP" or countless others don't have an origin of being a slur, hell the N word doesn't either, you be hard pressed to convince anyone they weren't, but you know, however YOU feel about it is I suppose all that matters.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... sh/redskin

NOUN

dated or offensive
An American Indian.
Last edited by HumanCockroach on Tue May 24, 2016 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 3:26 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:I'm not interested in your "levels of slurs" in the least.


I'm getting the impression you're not interested in a lot of things, HC.

The word "fag" or "WOP" or countless others don't have an origin of being a slur,


And I'll say this as many times as you need me to, too: I'm not talking purely about the *origin* of the word- I'm talking about its entire etymology.

But then you'd have known that if you'd have read the links you claim to have read.

And the "offensive" stuff wasn't added to those definitions until people started bitching about it (something else you'd know if you'd read the links you claim to have read). Granted, it was like the 70s, so it's been a while, but the point is it was never considered offensive until people started whining about it. So stop with the dictionary stuff and stick to the history of the word through the years.
Last edited by burrrton on Tue May 24, 2016 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 3:30 pm

You must have missed the "your" part. I'm interested in quite a bit, just not in arguing with someone looking for a debate.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 3:31 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:You must have missed the "your" part. I'm interested in quite a bit, just not in arguing with someone looking for a debate.


No no- I saw that. I just think it's patently obvious you're not interested in thoroughly researching anything, which, to be fair to you, you admitted earlier.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby RiverDog » Tue May 24, 2016 4:02 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Could have been numerous things. Attorney sounds more professional for one ( akin to account representative versus insurance salesman etc). Unless he stressed that the word lawyer was offensive, there's no way to know. Again not sure the correlation between a job and a slur, but it seems to be one you continue to try and make.

One refers to a race of people and one refers to a profession, much the same way you attempted to correlate a religious position with a racial subscription/ slur, they aren't the same, at least in no tangible way.


The point about not calling an attorney a lawyer was in rebuttal to North Hawk's question about "continuing to use that term to their face". If someone is genuinely uncomfortable with a term no matter what the reason, whether it be professional, racial, or otherwise, I'll do my best to accede to their wishes and avoid referring to them by it at least in their presence, but that does not necessarily mean that I'm going to strike it from my vocabulary and never refer to anyone by it.

Here's another analogy: My aunt would get extremely upset if I referred to my mother as my "old lady", so I never referred to mom like that whenever my aunt was around. But with my friends, other relatives, etc, I referred to her as my old lady or the old lady all the time, as did most of my friends refer to their mothers as their "old lady". Hell, even my dad would refer to mom in that manner. It was just my aunt that got her panties in a wad.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Tue May 24, 2016 4:12 pm

It was just my aunt that got her panties in a wad.


Triggering.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 5:01 pm

Here's another analogy: My aunt would get extremely upset if I referred to my mother as my "old lady", so I never referred to mom like that whenever my aunt was around. But with my friends, other relatives, etc, I referred to her as my old lady or the old lady all the time, as did most of my friends refer to their mothers as their "old lady". Hell, even my dad would refer to mom in


Again, I'm kind of at a loss as to the comparison here. Has anyone said they wanted the word Redskins stricken from anyone's vocabulary?

Using your analogy, it would be like saying it repeatedly in front of numerous grandma's that don't like it, just not yours, like half a million or more. Even then they aren't really comparable unless there was a history of numerous horrible actions against mothers derrogatorially called "old ladies"...

It's difficult for me to see these comparisons, as I'm not seeing references to professions, religious positions, or mothers. Guess that's a failing of mine, but one that doesn't really concern me much.
Last edited by HumanCockroach on Tue May 24, 2016 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 5:08 pm

No no- I saw that. I just think it's patently obvious you're not interested in thoroughly researching anything, which, to be fair to you, you admitted earlier


Add things that don't interest me or things that don't effect me or things that I have no strong feelings about or even things that are a waste of my time or things that people fight about because they aren't happy with other people feeling differently, after not interested in thoroughly researching and you would be pretty close to the mark.

I'm not interested in a campaign either for or against what's PC acceptable or not, I adjust to what society deems acceptable, and don't get upset much if I have to change a turn of a phrase or stop using a word. It's not a big deal to me, never has and never will be
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby RiverDog » Tue May 24, 2016 6:43 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Using your analogy, it would be like saying it repeatedly in front of numerous grandma's that don't like it, just not yours, like half a million or more. Even then they aren't really comparable unless there was a history of numerous horrible actions against mothers derrogatorially called "old ladies"...

It's difficult for me to see these comparisons, as I'm not seeing references to professions, religious positions, or mothers. Guess that's a failing of mine, but one that doesn't really concern me much.


It's less than half a million, Roach, more like 360k.

5.4M Native Americans, times .74 that are over 18 (the survey parameters), times .09 that felt Redskins was offensive.

But go ahead and tell the other roughly 3.2 MILLION Native Americans that they're wrong and that they're going to have to accept this name change whether they agree with it or not because we/they need to be sensitive to the .09% deviants from the norm that feel offended.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue May 24, 2016 7:09 pm

Um, what's this "they're wrong" stuff? Are we assuming that "the name doesn't offend me" somehow translates to " I love the name, you better not change it"?

Not sure how you got there exactly. As I have said, the slur WOP doesn't offend me, doesn't mean I think people offended by it are "wrong", just that I ignore it, or have bigger fish to fry, doesn't come close to some sort of praise for it.

Could you maybe point out the area where it discusses the native American pride in the Redskins name. I've read the article multiple times and honestly don't see it...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15608 ... -post-poll
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby RiverDog » Wed May 25, 2016 5:46 am

HumanCockroach wrote:Um, what's this "they're wrong" stuff? Are we assuming that "the name doesn't offend me" somehow translates to " I love the name, you better not change it"?

Not sure how you got there exactly. As I have said, the slur WOP doesn't offend me, doesn't mean I think people offended by it are "wrong", just that I ignore it, or have bigger fish to fry, doesn't come close to some sort of praise for it.

Could you maybe point out the area where it discusses the native American pride in the Redskins name. I've read the article multiple times and honestly don't see it...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15608 ... -post-poll


I probably shouldn't have said "wrong", so let me revise that to say that you're putting yourself opposite of 90% of the NA adult population that doesn't consider it a slur.

But where was it that anyone said that not disrespectful translates into love for it or praising it?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Wed May 25, 2016 7:26 am

I adjust to what society deems acceptable


I'd hope so- why aren't you doing so here?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed May 25, 2016 8:04 am

RiverDog wrote:
It's less than half a million, Roach, more like 360k.


Only 360,000 people huh? What is your number of people offended that it would take for you to stop using a particular slur? Does it actually have to be a half a million?

RiverDog wrote:
But go ahead and tell the other roughly 3.2 MILLION Native Americans that they're wrong and that they're going to have to accept this name change whether they agree with it or not


You can't possibly be serious. Do you honestly imagine that there ANY native americans (other than diehard Skins fans) that would not accept the name change?!

RiverDog wrote: because we/they need to be sensitive to the .09% deviants from the norm that feel offended.


Deviants? Really? Wow.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Wed May 25, 2016 8:20 am

What is your number of people offended that it would take for you to stop using a particular slur?


What percentage of Native Americans telling you it's not offensive would it take for you to stop calling it a racial slur?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed May 25, 2016 8:47 am

burrrton wrote:
What percentage of Native Americans telling you it's not offensive would it take for you to stop calling it a racial slur?


It's a slur by definition. I have no percentage of people it would take to tell me it offends them to stop using it, I've already stopped. There is no percentage that could get me to stop calling it a slur because it is, whether an individual is or is not offended speaks more to how well adjusted that individual is, not whether or not the word is a slur.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Wed May 25, 2016 10:09 am

There is no percentage that could get me to stop calling it a slur because it is, whether an individual is or is not offended speaks more to how well adjusted that individual is


LOL. Ok, Bob.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Wed May 25, 2016 11:47 am

Nice try Burton, but a societal slur that doesn't bother the majority, is still a slur, by all means continue to go around referring to Native Americans as Redskins, though I highly doubt you or anyone else "fighting" the PC police would ever in a million years think of doing so ( because deep down you KNOW it is a slur, hence your refusal to say it to someone that *might* be offended)....

If you aren't, won't, haven't said it about or towards a person the slur is directed towards even you have adjusted to the truth of the word being a slur and all of this, is nothing but hot air.

Also, I don't have to use a slur, simply because society deems it ok, when did that become a rule? Just because people were still using the N - word in the 70's and 80's didn't mean I had to, and I didn't, it's that whole "respect" thing that keeps tripping me up.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Wed May 25, 2016 12:00 pm

I probably shouldn't have said "wrong", so let me revise that to say that you're putting yourself opposite of 90% of the NA adult population that doesn't consider it a slur


None of that is accurate RD. Change it to "completely opposite of 90% polled in this survey don't find it offensive"( the "not a slur" thing is all you, not the small group polled.)... In which case I'm not sure what you are saying. At no point have I said the word "offends" me either, it doesn't ( course slurs directed AT me don't offend me either), no where have I even argued that they have to change the name. The ONLY thing I have consistently stated is that the word IS a slur.

I didn't see a "is the word a slur" poll in there, you continue to make leaps that aren't yours to make. Plenty of people aren't offended by lots of different slurs, that doesn't make it not one.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Wed May 25, 2016 12:27 pm

Nice try Burton, but a societal slur that doesn't bother the majority, is still a slur


A "societal slur" now- this is just getting better and better! Be sure to tell all those maladjusted Native Americans, too, HC, that you guys have their offenses all figured out for them.

[edit]

If you aren't, won't, haven't said it about or towards a person the slur is directed towards even you have adjusted to the truth of the word being a slur and all of this, is nothing but hot air.


*sigh* Scroll back up and read the posts covering "interpersonal communication". This is speech com 101. I wouldn't say "Hey, Indian", either, but that doesn't mean I think "indian" is a racial slur.

[edited to remove dick-ish language]
Last edited by burrrton on Wed May 25, 2016 12:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Wed May 25, 2016 12:44 pm

Plenty of people aren't offended by lots of different slurs, that doesn't make it not one.


That's true- it doesn't mean it's not one, but the mere existence of even a single offended person doesn't make it one, either (see RD's lawyer friend for an example).
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby HumanCockroach » Wed May 25, 2016 1:12 pm

Which has been established isn't an example. Racial slurs have nothing to do with a profession, so the example like so many others is pointless.

The "societal" comment wasn't some new name or meaning, I was only attempting to show that "acceptance" of the use of a slur by the majority, doesn't make it not a slur or an acceptable word, it merely means society has accepted it, as is the case here.

Interpersonal relations absolutely matters in regards to the common place usage of a slur, if you wouldn't refer to Native Americans in regular speech as "Redskins" you know
on some level acknowledge it's a slur or offensive. No different than the poll taken. Not once did I see them refer to the polling as "Redskins", why not? Because everyone whether they want to admit it or not, want to argue it or not, ACKNOWLEDGES that it could or will offend people. Whether that be a majority or minority is irrelevant to the discussion, because it IS the truth. Native Americans are referred to by the ACCEPTED term of that because to refer to them using a slur isn't accepted practice in general society.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: And you thought Redskins is offensive....

Postby burrrton » Wed May 25, 2016 1:19 pm

Which has been established isn't an example.


No, you *asserted* it wasn't an example by making a distinction without a difference because you didn't like the implication that "Someone is offended therefore it's a slur" is nonsense.

Interpersonal relations absolutely matters in regards to the common place usage of a slur, if you wouldn't refer to Native Americans in regular speech as "Redskins" you know
on some level acknowledge it's a slur or offensive.


Wrong. There are *lots* of things I wouldn't refer to people as, none of which are necessarily, then, slurs. It's rude to refer to people you're directly interacting with by group names (among other things).

I don't know how to state this any more clearly.

Not once did I see them refer to the polling as "Redskins", why not?


The first question is "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn't it bother you?"

How could they cover the term "Redskins" any more directly? Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to say there.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests