Can "Redskin" name survive the current climate?

[Doomsday]

"redskin" is a derogatory term.

It's been demagogued to be called that. As I pointed out earlier, the definition is what the PC forces of evil say it is. Poll after poll shows that term is NOT "offensive" by and large, to the walkaday Native American. And it wasn't offensive in context, when originally used for the name of that team.

It's not at all a stretch to assert that team names such as "Cowboys" are on the wishlist of the PC despots.

"Vikings" and my post about restrooms aren't serious contenders and weren't put up to be so - they were examples of pointing out absurdity using absurdity. Humor.

 

[Dodger12]

Welcome to Hope and Change gentlemen..........has any President caused this much destruction during his term?

 

[Doomsday]

Welcome to Hope and Change gentlemen..........has any President caused this much destruction during his term?

They never let a good crisis go to waste. In their wet dreams they fantasize about a mass shooting of a Native American wigwam now - by a bunch of Cowboys. (Or anything they can argue might be a Cowboy.)

 

[peplaw06]

It's not at all a stretch to assert that team names such as "Cowboys" are on the wishlist of the PC despots.

Do you have any kind of serious article, post, tweet, etc. -- not satirical -- where anyone has claimed "Cowboys" is offensive? Or are you just talking out your ass like usual?

 

[Doomsday]

Do you have any kind of serious article, post, tweet, etc. -- not satirical -- where anyone has claimed "Cowboys" is offensive?

I never said anyone did. I am saying don't be all that shocked if it's not coming soon to a PC world near you.

Excuse the hell out of me if there's not a great deal I put past these tyrants. Why so hostile, all the time?

 

[Woodson Bible & Guns]

are people of Nordic ancestry offended at all by the term Vikings? No? Not quite the same thing.

"redskin" is a derogatory term. Viking or Cowboy isn't.

You need to decide whether the Redskins have to go on the SJW appeasement altar because they offend some sensitive flowers or because the term is derogatory. If the former, the Vikings will need to go too - or are you a rape apologist? If the latter, then Yankees need to go, because there is surely no more derogatory term than Yankee. Of course, you could always claim both of these are valid condition for appeasement to sensitively disturbed snowflakes, in which case Vikings and Yankees both need to go.

Cowboys, btw, is sexist by definition. Off with their (dick)heads!

 

[peplaw06]

I never said anyone did. I am saying don't be all that shocked if it's not coming soon to a PC world near you.

Excuse the hell out of me if there's not a great deal I put past these tyrants. Why so hostile, all the time?

No, that's not what you said... You said "it's not at all a stretch" to "assert" that the name "Cowboys" was on the list.

Paraphrased for those who don't speak moron, you think there are people out there who think it's offensive. I just asked you to prove it. Otherwise, this is just more pollution.

It's like this board is the Prince William Sound and you're the Exxon Valdez.

 

[peplaw06]

You need to decide whether the Redskins have to go on the SJW appeasement altar because they offend some sensitive flowers or because the term is derogatory. If the former, the Vikings will need to go too - or are you a rape apologist? If the latter, then Yankees need to go, because there is surely no more derogatory term than Yankee. Of course, you could always claim both of these are valid condition for appeasement to sensitively disturbed snowflakes, in which case Vikings and Yankees both need to go.

Cowboys, btw, is sexist by definition. Off with their (dick)heads!

These slippery slope arguments are so lame.

Just because the term "redskin" is being targeted, it doesn't mean every mascot is under attack. The Cleveland Indians aren't being asked to change their name... they changed their logo, because it was a cartoonish charicature of the people. The term "redskin" is deemed a slur by at least a significant portion of the population.... and that's definitely understandable. If they changed the name to Braves, then it would probably be fine...

The argument that if one thing is offensive then everything else could be offensive is just ridiculous. Every mascot, nickname, etc. should be considered separately from others.

 

[Doomsday]

No, that's not what you said... You said "it's not at all a stretch" to "assert" that the name "Cowboys" was on the list.

Paraphrased for those who don't speak moron, you think there are people out there who think it's offensive. I just asked you to prove it. Otherwise, this is just more pollution.

It's like this board is the Prince William Sound and you're the Exxon Valdez.

Continue to distort what's said so you can "win the innernets." It's infantile.

I don't put much past these tyrants at all. I have no doubt "Cowboys" is on the list of the PC despots, they just need a good crisis to make it known. That's OPINION not stating it as fact. I have no doubt.

The argument that if one thing is offensive then everything else could be offensive is just ridiculous.

Nobody's made that argument.

Additionally, you all continue to ignore "Rebels" coming under attack. It's not racially offensive to anyone, it merely represents the oppressor. Everything in increments, that's how they work. You pretend they have rules, or something.

I throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will continue to lay them before you.

 

[Woodson Bible & Guns]

These slippery slope arguments are so lame.

Just because the term "redskin" is being targeted, it doesn't mean every mascot is under attack. The Cleveland Indians aren't being asked to change their name... they changed their logo, because it was a cartoonish charicature of the people. The term "redskin" is deemed a slur by at least a significant portion of the population.... and that's definitely understandable. If they changed the name to Braves, then it would probably be fine...

The argument that if one thing is offensive then everything else could be offensive is just ridiculous. Every mascot, nickname, etc. should be considered separately from others.

Nobody cares about the motivation for this or that SJW demand any more. These people have made it abundantly clear that they are uninterested in anything except power and to think that all these insane demands will stop if we just appease them THIS ONE TIME, HONEST, GUV'NOR is... funny.

Down with the sexist, trans-oppressive, misogynistic "Cowboys"! DALLAS BULLWOMYN for the win!

 

[peplaw06]

Continue to distort what's said so you can "win the innernets." It's infantile.

I didn't distort anything. I took your inane gibberish statement of fact and translated it for those who speak normal English.

I don't put much past these tyrants at all. I have no doubt "Cowboys" is on the list of the PC despots, they just need a good crisis to make it known. That's OPINION not stating it as fact. I have no doubt.

Just keep spinning.

And I'm going to put the definitions of fact vs. opinion on the list as another thing you don't understand.

Nobody's made that argument.

That's what a "slippery slope" argument is... Added to the list.

Additionally, you all continue to ignore "Rebels" coming under attack. It's not racially offensive to anyone, it merely represents the oppressor. Everything in increments, that's how they work. You pretend they have rules, or something.

You don't understand how a mascot depicting those "oppressors" who fought for slavery could be racially offensive?

 

[peplaw06]

Nobody cares about the motivation for this or that SJW demand any more. These people have made it abundantly clear that they are uninterested in anything except power and to think that all these insane demands will stop if we just appease them THIS ONE TIME, HONEST, GUV'NOR is... funny.

Down with the sexist, trans-oppressive, misogynistic "Cowboys"! DALLAS BULLWOMYN for the win!

Still waiting on any story, tweet, facebook status, article that's seriously questioning the political correctness of the use of the term "Cowboys" as a mascot... Anyone?

 

[Doomsday]

I didn't distort anything. I took your inane gibberish statement of fact and translated it for those who speak normal English.

Right, "translated" it so that it doesn't in any way resemble what I actually typed. So 'distortion' was actually quite gentle. Your act is really pathetic.

Still waiting on any story, tweet, facebook status, article that's seriously questioning the political correctness of the use of the term "Cowboys" as a mascot... Anyone?

No one ever claimed any such existed, Mr. Straw.

BUT - they've spent way more time thinking about this than you have. Anecdotal I know, but find a leftist professor in your area and ask him about "Cowboys" as a team mascot, and Cowboys in general. Educate yourself.

You don't understand how a mascot depicting those "oppressors" who fought for slavery could be racially offensive?

"Rebels" itself isn't offensive to anyone except possibly, big gubmint types.

 

[Doomsday]

I took your inane gibberish statement of fact

Actually you cherry picked, completely ignoring my first comment about this which was:

The "Cowboys" name is probably high on the list if not outright next up. Because Cowboys oppressed and killed the Indians, ya know.

And, I didn't say anything adding to that which would in any way come close to your lies about what I actually said.

What I actually said was, "probably" which is used most when you're NOT trying to state fact.

You just want to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Doesn't matter to you at all what is actually thought or spoken.

 

[jnday]

I didn't distort anything. I took your inane gibberish statement of fact and translated it for those who speak normal English.

Just keep spinning.

And I'm going to put the definitions of fact vs. opinion on the list as another thing you don't understand.

That's what a "slippery slope" argument is... Added to the list.

You don't understand how a mascot depicting those "oppressors" who fought for slavery could be racially offensive?

You need a history lesson. Most of the Rebels that fought didn't own a slave. Slavery was not the biggest issue that the rebels were fighting for. The political battles that are being fought today, mirrored the politics that was involved in the rebel's cause. Putting the slavery thing aside, look at the results. Anybody that takes a serious look at the current state of this country can not tell me that people would receive better government from a state level due to the fact that each state knows what's in the best interest of the people living in each state. The government in my state knows it's residents much better than a government in Washington DC. Using gay marriage as an example, why in the hell should my state have to allow gay marriages if a large percentage of it's people disagree with it. As for the name "Redskins", polls have shown that most a Native Americans are not offended by the term and have no problem with the name being used. The term "Redskins" was used to honor Native Americans until this PC craze started taking hold with the gutless Americans that fear offending anybody. If a few people are offended , so what ? They can get over it. I am not offended by the terms "white boy", "kracker" or even "blue eyed Devils". If words can hurt these PC , gutless pussys, they are not real men anyway. It doesn't surprise me though. I will use the black community as an example. In my lifetime, they have been called n*****s, negros, colored, black , and now African Anericans. If they don't know what they want to be called, how in the hell should I know?

 

[jnday]

Yeah, this is where the "if we allow gay marriage, next thing you know, people can marry animals" logic comes from.

Welcome to the wrong side of history.

Lawsuits are being filed now from pedophiles for legal marriages . Another suit is being brought by a man that wants to be legally married to two women. Humans marrying their pets is another lawsuit that is in the works. Yes, our fine legal system has opened a can of worms. If supporting this freak show means that I am on the wrong side of history, I will be very proud of it. Most people in this country are do damn afraid of offending someone else that they will support anything because they are afraid of being labeled a bigot. It has passed from being a country with low morals to being a country with no morals. Doesn't this just my everyone feel so proud to be an American? I don't believe in mistreating anybody , but I am not going to change my beliefs to support this sick shit. Our society has become a freak show and I refuse to embrace it just so that a small , sick group of freaks will be happy. Before I get blasted for basing my opinions on strictly religious doctrine, I can promise it is far from it. After the murder of my daughter, religion has little tondo with forming my opinions. Some things are just common sense.

 

[jnday]

Yeah, this is where the "if we allow gay marriage, next thing you know, people can marry animals" logic comes from.

Welcome to the wrong side of history.

Chris, you know that I really have a lot of respect for you and you are a good decent guy, but the doors have been opened and lawsuits are starting that involves the very things that you don't think will happen . I feel like I am safe in guessing that you are exposed to more gay people than I am and I am sure you know many gay couples. Even if I was exposed to more gay people, it could never make me believe that the gays have the right to redefine the definition of marriage. The gays or no other group should have the right to do that. When laws are changed just for a small minority, it is giving them special rights. History is now thrown out the window due to these few people . No group should should those kind of special rights. The definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a women since the beginning of time. After thousands of years, what makes the gays so special that there are special rights given to them at this point in history. Yes, they are ruining the sanctity of marriage. This kind of change in law should have been decided by the voters of each state and the US Government should not have the authority to force people to go against their religious beliefs .

 

[Doomsday]

Yes, our fine legal system has opened a can of worms.

Of course, suits can be filed, that doesn't mean they automatically succeed.

But, I'll take this legal slippery slope argument to its Genesis with this:

King George III, 239 years ago today: "You dumb sons of bitches, you have NO idea what you're doing. You are starting out on a slippery slope that will wind up with women voting, slaves freed and voting and marrying your white women, and all kinds of other bad consequences. I am sending ships and troops to stop this nonsense, to save you from yourselves. WE are your government, you have NO right to self determine! And we are going to get busy killing you ALL if necessary, burning your towns and cities, occupying them, to maintain traditions that have been common law for thousands of years!"

I'll boil this down for you..

We have Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Geo. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan on record saying, "conservatives default to liberty" in so many words give or take. Okay then...

Do they mean conservatives default to liberty only when it fits the religious/social establishment model?

We FLED England in no small part due to the oppression of the church. Marriage as it exists today is a vestige of that oppression - we all agree the government shouldn't be in our bedrooms right? Why should it be at our altars then?

I know I'm not going to see what I want - government totally out of marriage. I'll grant that. But when we actually and truly default to liberty on this issue, we must ask ourselves, "who is being wronged or hurt, whose rights are being violated, by allowing same sex marriage? Who is being hurt by expanding the definition of "marriage" to include same sex couples?"

Anyone? Of course not.

Marriage is a atrophied tentacle of the old world church-driven government, and one that has a 50% or better failure rate. It's not sacrosanct.

In the preamble to our Constitution it says "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" and we have the SCOTUS on record declaring marriage a "basic human right." Is marriage not then, one of the "blessings of liberty?"

Liberty says, "It's Adam and Eve, AND Adam and Steve."

The slippery slope argument forgets that everything is case by case - the unintended consequences don't automatically just happen. Opponents of freeing the slaves argued the same thing. Opponents of black civil rights argued the same thing. Opponents of women's suffrage argued the same thing. And so on.

For tens of thousands of years, mankind had the long standing tradition of governing himself with kings, despots and tyrants, and thievery and oppression. Then BOOM! 239 years ago a different, new way was tried, a much more liberal way. Did it start a "slippery slope?" There's still kings, despots and tyrants, and thievery and oppression. And the new way? It's still the new way and it is still EVOLVING.

The slippery slope if it exists started with the Boston Tea Party - and freedom continues to spread. We stopped enslaving blacks, saw that women have the right to VOTE they fought so hard for, de-criminalized homosexual acts, made oppression a crime, we can't cherry pick the actual beginning of the slippery slope, if it exists.

You're ON the slippery slope if it exists, and always been on it, you just occasionally don't like some of its dips and turns. Liberty.... Is the slippery slope.

 

[lons]

There is nothing new in this "new way" bravo for the slippery slope though. Legalize everything then, since the default should be liberty. Here, I'll start with one that grinds my gears. Cops get to speed, why can't I? I want to speed. Let's get someone on this with a lobbying group. Pronto!

 

[Woodson Bible & Guns]

Still waiting on any story, tweet, facebook status, article that's seriously questioning the political correctness of the use of the term "Cowboys" as a mascot... Anyone?

You could have said that about the Redskins some years ago. Once SJWs get one victory, there will be an avalanche of demands and shrill calls for political correctness, backed by the DNC/MSM and Designated Victim Group grievance mongers. A sexist, hetero-normative, genocidal label like "Cowboy"? Why do you hate women, people with fluid gender identities and Native Americans? Really.