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 » Wed May 25, 2016 2:35 pm

Huh- almost as if you can't be bothered to read anything I take the time to write or link. To your credit you did warn me.

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.
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 4:32 pm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_ ... .281968.29

Imagine that, freedom of speech, followed closely by people not liking the use of a slur directed at them.

You can spare me the claims of I haven't read your links, when you obviously feel little to no need to read any provided for you.

The links are a simple answer to the claim I "asserted" that a slur and a profession aren't comparable, as I grow bored with your continued need to argue over a subject I'm certainly NOT invested in. Despite what you seem to believe I don't care one way or the other, however, I DO grasp the definition of a slur, I DO grasp why some would be offended, and I DON'T base any of my words on the thought of "if I give in, then the ( insert whatever stupid group you want here) has won".

I DON'T care if you feel you are "safeguarding" my rights or liberties, or honestly if you feel you are doing so for your loved ones, family or friends, because the truth is, at no point in my life have I felt like using a "slur" or not infringes on any of my rights or my family's or friends rights. I'm not into creating a battle ( especially one that has zero benefit for those I care about) for no reason.

Maybe, you should be funneling your angst and concern over the PC nature of this society, at those advocating, advancing or encouraging its growth, and avoid attempting to insult, belittle and anger those that AREN'T part of that group. Just an idea.
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 4:40 pm

You can spare me the claims of I haven't read your links, when you obviously feel little to no need to read any provided for you.


Yes, those dictionary definitions and the same news story we've been reading for 20 years were very enlightening.

The links are a simple answer to the claim I "asserted" that a slur and a profession aren't comparable, as I grow bored with your continued need to argue over a subject I'm certainly NOT invested in.


Stop with your "I don't care" BS- you care as much as I do about arguing it or you would have shut up already.

I don't care if he changes the name or not- I *do* care about people using bullsht arguments to say he should or shouldn't.

And you *did* simply assert (no quotes needed)- RD wasn't saying racial slurs and professions are identical- he was illustrating when you go down this stupid road of relativism and claim it doesn't matter how few people are offended by something, you open yourself up to anything and *everything* being considered offensive.

To be clear, "Redskins" isn't the most ridiculous of those examples, but its nature has been so vastly exaggerated as to be comical.

Maybe, you should be funneling your angst and concern over the PC nature of this society, at those advocating, advancing or encouraging its growth, and avoid attempting to insult, belittle and anger those that AREN'T part of that group. Just an idea.


Thanks for the idea- you seem to be in lockstep with them, so you'll do for now.
Last edited by burrrton on Wed May 25, 2016 4:46 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 » Wed May 25, 2016 4:45 pm

Then I recommend you re-read every post again. Understanding a word, isn't the same as fighting to remove it. Being in "lock step" with PC society has little to nothing to do with understanding why a slur is or isn't 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 4:48 pm

Understanding a word, isn't the same as fighting to remove it.


Yes, but your "understanding" of the word is completely one-sided, so your arguments mean you're marching with the goose-stepping PC morons ("WOULD YOU CALL THEM THE WASHINGTON N*GGERS?!?").

It's not my fault you don't like the company you're keeping.
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 5:01 pm

And I'm sorry that your ability to grasp that not agreeing with you makes me by default on the other "side". I stopped caring what "group" I fit in in JR. high, I can certainly accept your delusional belief that I "belong" to another group simply because I don't "belong" to yours.

I'm ok being an individual, it free's up a lot of time, stress and needless concerns. I long ago put away the clique mentality. I don't vote, love, fight or argue etc simply because "those" people are Democrats or Republicans or white or black or progressive or conservatives etc. I do those things based on how I view things, and I'm content with it.

I don't at any point feel the need to come on a sports board and whine, moan, rail about a stupid subject, nor do I feel the need to insult, belittle, attack or bait those on that platform about a subject entirely unrelated to the purpose of said platform. It isn't necessary, mature or enlightening.

I'm glad that you "found a target" for all the angst you obviously feel about today's society, but am curious as to why you chose this location, this platform and in particular me personally to direct it at? There's all sorts of groups out there that would be far more of a sport to insult.
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 5:10 pm

Yes, but your "understanding" of the word is completely one-sided, so your arguments mean you're marching with the goose-stepping PC morons ("WOULD YOU CALL THEM THE WASHINGTON N*GGERS?!?").


Ah, maybe you should get on that research behind that word as well ( also simply a descriptive word based on the color of their skin).

My "understanding" isn't "one sided". I'm not required to "agree" with you ( or "them" for that matter). Ain't America great? You CAN think for yourself, though obviously some refuse to do so.

Edit: for your continued education on word origins.. Enjoy...

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_even ... ef-history

And some updated reading material, since everything is 20 years old ( which is definitely odd as your whole premise is that it only became offensive once the PC warriors got a hold of it, which SHOULD mean 20 years ago no one would have cared. We'll just skip that it was classified as offensive by the dictionary inn the mid 1800's shall we?)

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/ne ... me-update/

PS there's PLENTY of information out there, for someone as "well read" on the subject, I would think you wouldn't be claiming any expertise, if you only read the information that YOU agreed with, and even if you HAD it IS possible believe it or not, to come to an ENTIRELY different opinion on it than you did. Doesn't mean it's "ONLY ONE SIDED" it MEANS someone came to a DIFFERENT conclusion. As hard as it may be for you to grasp, people not agreeing with you, doesn't make them wrong, nor the enemy.
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 9:54 pm

HC, I know good writing isn't everybody's bag, and I know I fall down in that regard frequently, but I've read over both your posts a few times and I still don't have any idea what you're trying to say with regard to anything we've been discussing.

For example:

And I'm sorry that your ability to grasp that not agreeing with you makes me by default on the other "side". I stopped caring what "group" I fit in in JR. high, I can certainly accept your delusional belief that I "belong" to another group simply because I don't "belong" to yours.


You're sorry... that my ability to grasp... what?? "Cliques"? "Fitting in"?

What does that even mean, and how does it address what I said in any way?

You need to quit capitalizing (and putting in quotes) words at random, think your thoughts out more carefully, make sure they're both addressing what you're responding to and saying what you want them to say, then find the fewest words you can to express those thoughts.

It's a talent in those that can do that easily, but it doesn't take that much effort (and I'll work harder at it, too).

Ah, maybe you should get on that research behind that word as well


I've *been* on that research for far longer than you have, and you've admitted as much.

You want to start over? Let me know if so and in the interest of fairness and camaraderie, we can wipe the slate clean and I'll state my position as succinctly as I know how.
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 10:08 pm

Whatever. I'm done. I don't care what you think about me, slurs, or really life in general. I'm sorry that I didn't succinctly express myself in a way you desired, I apologize for not viewing everything and everyone the way you do. I suppose I'll just have to learn to live with myself, and all the failings that includes...
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 10:17 pm

I'm sorry that I didn't succinctly express myself in a way you desired


I wasn't asking for you to indulge my desires- I honestly can't understand what you're saying. I'm moderately well-educated and have no desire to play gotcha games, so I strive to give a fair reading and respond to what I think you're trying to say even if it's not perfectly expressed (and I hope others do the same for me).

If you want to bow out, though, go ahead. I think we've both made our positions perfectly clear at this point.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby RiverDog » Wed May 25, 2016 10:55 pm

CBob:

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?

So how did you come to the conclusion that there were 360,000 people that thought the term "Redskins" was a slur? That's not how the question was worded. The term that was used in the survey was "offensive". If the survey said slur, racial slur, demeaning, etc, the percentage might have been even been lower than 9% as one could conceivably consider Redskins to be offensive but not a slur. "Offensive" is a more sanitary term.

But for the sake of argument, I'll concede that "slur" is exactly the same as "offensive" and answer your question. We debated this earlier in the thread. If I know that a person is uncomfortable with a term, I won't use it, at least not in their presence. If it's a term that such a small minority is offended by, I'm probably not going to stop using it in general just because a couple of people were offended by it. Example: I won't call my mother my "old lady" in front of my aunt, who was very offended by that term, but that won't stop me from referring to mom like that to my dad or my friends.

"You can't possibly be serious. Do you honestly imagine that there ANY native americans (other than diehard Skins fans) that would [i]not accept the name change?!"
[/i]
That wasn't the point I was trying to make, and it's my fault for not wording it right. I should have never said "accept" a name change.

Deviants? Really? Wow.

Now that's an offensive term, isn't it? I said it mainly for effect, just like you and Roach harden up your language to make your points stick out by substituting "slur" and "racial slur" for offensive. The term deviant, as harsh and cruel as that may sound, is exactly correct. 9% is a major deviation from the norm, out on the fringe. A higher percentage of people believe that the moon landings were faked than NA's believe the name "Redskins" is offensive.
Last edited by RiverDog on Thu May 26, 2016 2:00 am, edited 8 times 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 HumanCockroach » Thu May 26, 2016 12:19 am

I wanted to bow out around page 2 of this thread. I honestly do not care one way or the other, despite your belief otherwise Burton.
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 » Thu May 26, 2016 12:35 am

HumanCockroach wrote:I wanted to bow out around page 2 of this thread. I honestly do not care one way or the other, despite your belief otherwise Burton.


So you wanted to bow out, but you couldn't- who victimized you this time?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby RiverDog » Thu May 26, 2016 1:33 am

burrrton wrote:So you (Roach) wanted to bow out, but you couldn't- who victimized you this time?


Like a moth to a flame.

I find your statement to be a little curious, too, Roach. For not caring one way or another, you sure debated the subject passionately.
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 » Thu May 26, 2016 10:05 am

First of all, I was done back on page three, I can copy and paste the post I made it clear I didn't care about whether they changed the name or not if you gentleman need it, secondly, I never said I was "victimnized". It's comments like that that drew me back in repeatedly. Thirdly, I haven't "argued" with any sort of passion, I have repeatedly pointed out parallels that aren't accurate ( lawyers and a voluntary name switch.) I pointed out similarities in origins of one slur to another, and consistently pointed out the hypocrisy of statements.

Ultimately, the word Redskins doesn't offend me ( which puts me in the "majority" right?) But understand that not being offended isn't the same as not recognizing others are offended and that the word IS a slur. Being able to do so, doesn't make me a PC warrior, or some evil person, it makes me aware, nothing more.

Last but not least, I "bowed out" as I was INVITED to do, and I was insulted again I politely did so with no jabs, no attacks and Burton and you feel you deserved an explanation? WTF for? Both of you are fairly lucky you had me to target in this whole idiotic waste of time. Can't you both just be thankful that you could peg me as someone who cared about the subject to begin with? And direct your ire about the horrible PC society you both have to cope with at someone and simply let me walk away once I was done playing the part you assigned me?
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 » Thu May 26, 2016 10:15 am

Can't you both just be thankful that you could peg me as someone who cared about the subject to begin with?


Human Cockroach- The Real Hero™
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby HumanCockroach » Thu May 26, 2016 12:31 pm

Whatever. Grow 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 RiverDog » Thu May 26, 2016 12:32 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Ultimately, the word Redskins doesn't offend me ( which puts me in the "majority" right?) But understand that not being offended isn't the same as not recognizing others are offended and that the word IS a slur. Being able to do so, doesn't make me a PC warrior, or some evil person, it makes me aware, nothing more.


Well, there's no evidence about non NA's feeling about the term "Redskins", but I'd venture a guess that you're probably right, that you're in the majority.

I obviously don't think you're evil. I feel that both you and CBob are very good, articulate debaters, but I do think that your attitudes makes both of you a "PC warrior" (for lack of a better term) that's having difficulty accepting the findings of this poll, as well as the previous nation wide poll one done back in 2004, that the vast majority of NA's aren't offended by the term Redskins. You're saying to us to hell with the 3.2M that don't think it's offensive, you should be sensitive to the feelings of the 360K that feel that it is. Well, IMO that 360K needs to get over it and grow a little thicker skin.

And as I mentioned in my response to CBob, you guys keep referring to it as a slur or racial slur. That's not the term used in the poll. "Offensive" is the operative word in the survey question, and substituting a different word, no matter how similar, makes a difference. I suspect that you're doing it because "Offensive" just doesn't have the shock value that a term like "racial slur" has, and substituting that word for the operative word makes your comments more memorable, or as I like to say, adds some stink to it. It's like what George Patton said about his use of profanity... "When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty."

Boy, I never had any idea that this thread would go on like it has. But if you're going to bug out, I'm claiming victory :D
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 c_hawkbob » Thu May 26, 2016 1:59 pm

I'm no more a PC warrior than you are a bigot Dog, knock it off with the labels.
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 HumanCockroach » Thu May 26, 2016 2:54 pm

No, I'm doing it because believe it or not, it's possible to not be offended by a slur ( even one directed at your race.). Not being offended doesn't make a word not a slur, there seems to be trouble deciphering that. I don't have any issues with the poll, nor with people having a strong feeling one way or another about a name change, I don't care if they do or don't. My issue has nothing to do what so ever with not wanting or wanting the name changed. Never has been and never will be.

Honestly, I don't understand the issue with calling a word what it is, nor do I grasp the need to measure the severity of a slur. The term honkey or Gringo more than likely offends even less of a percentage of whites, yet it's a slur none the less, not to mention numerous other slurs that don't offend the races they are directed at. It doesn't change what they are though.
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 » Thu May 26, 2016 5:53 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Whatever. Grow up.


I'm not the one begging for congratulations, HC. :)
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby burrrton » Thu May 26, 2016 5:58 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:I'm no more a PC warrior than you are a bigot Dog, knock it off with the labels.


For heaven's sake, Bob- RD isn't arguing a bigoted position, you *are* arguing the PC warrior's position, and if you're going to argue that, don't blame somebody for noticing.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby burrrton » Thu May 26, 2016 6:00 pm

Honestly, I don't understand the issue with calling a word what it is


Because you have little basis for asserting it is what you say it is.

You call it a racial slur, but it was never clearly that throughout its history, and 90% of the supposed 'slurred' disagree with you.

That's the whole point of the discussion.

The term honkey or Gringo more than likely offends even less of a percentage of whites, yet it's a slur none the less, not to mention numerous other slurs that don't offend the races they are directed at. It doesn't change what they are though.


Fair point. There is gray area here (like there is most of the time). However, no 'white' people have ever referred to each other as honkeys and gringos, and there are no 99% white high schools that embrace being the "San Dimas High Gringos" **.

"Redskins" simply isn't the 'slur' you seemingly decided it was. Neither its history nor current attitudes indicate it, so saying "but I KNOW it is regardless" sounds desperate.

[edit]

And would you really insist a high school was embracing a slur on "whites" if they *did* decide to go by "The Gringos"? I'm not so sure. When nobody is offended by it, it ceases to be a slur.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby HumanCockroach » Thu May 26, 2016 6:40 pm

Horsesh#t.
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 » Thu May 26, 2016 7:14 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Horsesh#t.


Comeback of the Year 2016: *tears open envelope* Human Cockroach!
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby RiverDog » Thu May 26, 2016 7:21 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:I'm no more a PC warrior than you are a bigot Dog, knock it off with the labels.


I did say 'for lack of a better term' when I called you and Roach a PC warrior. It wasn't even a term that I came up with, I stole it from Roach. Sorry if you feel that's offensive. I'm not sure how to describe your position in a manner that would suit you. But whether you like it or not, your position aligns perfectly with that of the politically correct crowd that, among other things, advises parents not to dress their little girls up as witches for Halloween because it's offensive to women.

You know, if they took a poll of non NA's about whether or not the term "Redskins" is offensive to NA's, I'll bet you that those that consider it offensive would far exceed the percentage of NA's that feel that way. A whole heck of a lot of white Americans suffer from this huge guilt complex, and will over react to such issues, vote for candidates outside their race that they otherwise wouldn't even consider just to prove to themselves that they're not a racist. I'm not necessarily saying any of the participants in this discussion suffer from such a guilt complex, but it would be really interesting to run a poll and try to explain what I think would be a very large difference. I really think that a subconscious guilt complex is one of the things that's at the root of this politically correct movement and affects the judgment of otherwise objective thinking individuals.
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 » Thu May 26, 2016 7:44 pm

But whether you like it or not, your position aligns perfectly with that of the politically correct crowd that, among other things, advises parents not to dress their little girls up as witches for Halloween because it's offensive to women


Horsesh#t. Not sure how you feel able to decipher what I or Bob feel about ANY other topic or view of ANY other subject is beyond me. It certainly must be nice to paint people based on a finite discussion, one in which they simply discuss what a single word is classified as.

( FYI my daughter and wife dress up as witches every Halloween, but I guess being a redneck, hillbilly child molesting, racist moron creates those beliefs though so you're forgiven...

See how ignorant it is to start labelling people based on a single belief in a topic, much less a single word?

I don't believe for a second you're any of those things, but you're slapping that label brush awfully broad. )
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 obiken » Fri May 27, 2016 12:38 am

Don't forget to call some Native American Woman Pocahontas, Donald.
obiken
Legacy
 
Posts: 3962
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:50 pm
Location: Wilsonville, Oregon 97070

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

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri May 27, 2016 6:02 am

burrrton wrote:
For heaven's sake, Bob- RD isn't arguing a bigoted position, you *are* arguing the PC warrior's position, and if you're going to argue that, don't blame somebody for noticing.


True only if you assume yourself to be correct that the term is not a racial epithet. I very obviouly reject that argument. You can't tell me I'm wrong on the strength of your opinion being the correct one.
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 c_hawkbob » Fri May 27, 2016 6:08 am

RiverDog wrote: I really think that a subconscious guilt complex is one of the things that's at the root of this politically correct movement and affects the judgment of otherwise objective thinking individuals.


Also BS, arguing so hard that you are not really being offensive is greater evidence of a guilty conscience than just adopting a less offensive position.
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 » Fri May 27, 2016 6:52 am

True only if you assume yourself to be correct that the term is not a racial epithet.


He's basing his position on what Native Americans themselves say is OK, so calling him a "bigot" based on that (because you're sure they're all maladjusted or some damn thing) is pure baloney. Sorry.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby burrrton » Fri May 27, 2016 6:57 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Also BS, arguing so hard that you are not really being offensive is greater evidence of a guilty conscience than just adopting a less offensive position.


Again, *he's* not the one saying the term isn't really offensive, Bob- NAs are.

Let me know if you want to keep the armchair psych eval game going, though- I've got some thoughts you might find interesting on people who claim groups of others not like them are too stupid (even maladjusted!) to know what's good for them.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby RiverDog » Fri May 27, 2016 8:45 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Also BS, arguing so hard that you are not really being offensive is greater evidence of a guilty conscience than just adopting a less offensive position.


I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you saying that because I am aggressively arguing the position that NA's are not offended by the term "Redskins" (which in fact they are not) that it's an indication that I have a guilty conscience? That doesn't make sense, so you will have to clarify.

Again, I am simply offering an opinion as to why more non NA's might feel the term Redskins is offensive than NA's themselves. I am not claiming it to be a fact.

Just for the fun of it, let's pretend that they conducted a nation wide survey of non NA's and posed the very same question to them and with the very same sampling methodology that the WP poll did with the NA's, and that the percentage of non NA's that feel that the term "Redskins" is offensive is 30%, more than triple what the NA's themselves feel. How would you explain that discrepancy?

And burrton is exactly right. I am simply echoing what 90% of the NA's are saying. It's a huge reach to think that behavior constitutes a guilty conscience, bigotry, etc.
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 ShackMod » Fri May 27, 2016 9:37 am

This thread will be moved to off topic since it clearly has.
User avatar
ShackMod
Site Admin
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:42 am

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

Postby NorthHawk » Sun May 29, 2016 10:17 am

I'll say it again, the poll was poorly designed.

Here are the problems:
People can find something offensive, but not really bothered by it.
There should have been 2 questions: Do you find it offensive? and Does it bother you?

Self identifying as Native Americans:
Only 44% claimed to be tribal citizens.
Who are the others? Statistical studies and even the US Census shows that there are non native individuals who claim to be Native Americans, but only because of personal belief and no verifiable lineage.
Since only 44% claim to be tribal citizens, 56% of respondents are now in doubt.

Demographics:
More than half were over the age of 50. The median age of Native Americans is 26 and only 15% of those polled were under 29.

Geographic distribution of the poll:
Only 12% of those polled were from the mountain regions where 18 of the 20 most populated reservation communities are.
36% of the respondents were from the South, where according to Census, only 13% of the total estimated population of Native Americans live.

These are huge roadblocks to achieving valid results and puts the 90% number in serious doubt.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

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

Postby burrrton » Sun May 29, 2016 10:35 am

That's what's known as "reaching".

I'll say it again, the poll was poorly designed.


*sigh* No it wasn't, North- finding a statistical anomaly in a randomly selected sample doesn't invalidate a poll (this is what margins of error and such account for). Again, WaPo and their polling operation are not some fly by night outfit- they know what they're doing.

You *can* say "Maybe the results would have been different if X was different" and you may be right, but you can say that about every poll ever conducted.

People can find something offensive, but not really bothered by it.


LOL- by definition, the act of being offended means it "bothers" you on some level. If you're being honest with yourself, how many people do you really think would draw a distinction between being "offended" and "bothered"?

These are huge roadblocks to achieving valid results and puts the 90% number in serious doubt.


No, they're small anomalies at best and are broadly consistent with every phone poll conducted in the last couple decades (younger people don't answer phones, etc).
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

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

Postby RiverDog » Mon May 30, 2016 6:39 am

NorthHawk wrote:I'll say it again, the poll was poorly designed.

Here are the problems:
People can find something offensive, but not really bothered by it.
There should have been 2 questions: Do you find it offensive? and Does it bother you?

Self identifying as Native Americans:
Only 44% claimed to be tribal citizens.
Who are the others? Statistical studies and even the US Census shows that there are non native individuals who claim to be Native Americans, but only because of personal belief and no verifiable lineage.
Since only 44% claim to be tribal citizens, 56% of respondents are now in doubt.

Demographics:
More than half were over the age of 50. The median age of Native Americans is 26 and only 15% of those polled were under 29.

Geographic distribution of the poll:
Only 12% of those polled were from the mountain regions where 18 of the 20 most populated reservation communities are.
36% of the respondents were from the South, where according to Census, only 13% of the total estimated population of Native Americans live.

These are huge roadblocks to achieving valid results and puts the 90% number in serious doubt.


If a lot of NA's felt that "Redskins" was offensive but not really bothered by it, that would have driven the 90% down, not up. I hardly think that a person that was bothered by the term "Redskins" would feel it wasn't offensive.

But I would be a little more sympathetic to your points if not for the following two facts:

1. 90% is one helluva big majority. It would take one huge flaw, or series of flaws, to sway the results to anywhere close to a significant percentage, down to something like 60 or 65%. A 90% response is almost unheard of in a poll like this. As I said earlier, there was a larger percentage of people that felt the moon landings were fake than NA's that felt Redskins was offensive. It was a pretty impressive result.

2. A similar poll, posing the exact same question but conducted by a different polling company and with a little different methodology...the WP poll's methodology was modified in response to criticism to how the previous nation wide poll was conducted...was ran 12 years ago and came up with the exact same results, ie 90% felt that Redskins was not offensive. Coincidence? I think not, for the reason listed in #1: 90% is almost unheard of, and to have that same overwhelming response to the same exact question pop up again?

Here's how the WP ran the poll. IMO they did as good of a job as possible to make this poll as fair as they could:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ho ... ?tid=a_inl

It doesn't matter how you structure the question or how you conduct the survey. Some people will never accept the results unless it corresponds with their own sentiments. They'll always find some way to rationalize the results. It's an ego defense mechanism: The poll has to be flawed because I can't possibly be that wrong.
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 Oly » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:04 pm

For the curious, here is an article about the climate at Oberlin, perhaps the most extreme campus in the country when it comes to social justice issues. The goal of the piece seems to be to explain the students' perspectives for an outside audience, which means he has to be at least somewhat sympathetic towards them to tell their story as they want it told. That's a long way of saying I think the author is trying to be objective but the tone is certainly sympathetic and more pro-student than you'd normally find in an objective article (and I think it's very well written, if long-winded). But even with the sympathetic tone, I still come away shaking my head at what these students want and as frustrated by them as ever.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... s-colleges
User avatar
Oly
Legacy
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:01 pm
Location: Middle of cornfields

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

Postby burrrton » Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:53 pm

It's going to terrifyingly jarring to those poor little snowflakes when they head out into the real world and find out nobody gives two sh*ts about their feelings, triggers, preferred pronouns, or what they "identify" as.
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 21 guests