Washington Redtails? LMAO

[Texas Ace]

I would pay American dollars to see Iamtdg and/or Schmitty tell a black guy why they shouldn't be offended by the word nigger.

That would be an interesting scene, to say the least.

 

[Smitty]

Consider the legal concept of the hyper-sensitive plaintiff. This is a conception in the area of tort law. The term "battery" means an unwelcome or offensive touching. You can be sued for touching someone in an unwelcome or offensive manner. You can be liable for doing this.

However, giving someone a friendly pat on the back can never, as a rule of law, be a battery. Even if you come across a victim (plaintiff) who has, say, a rare bone disorder where all his bones shatter at the slightest contact. This person could be seriously injured by a friendly tap. In this specific person's unique case, a friendly pat on the back could cause untold damage and would most certainly be both unwelcome and offensive.

Now, I can't tell that injured person that he can't be hurt by the friendly tap. But the law holds that because the victim/plaintiff here is "hyper-sensitive," the offender cannot be liable.

That is the case here. The vast majority of Native Americans aren't bothered by this. There is no demonstrable harm, as has been determined by federal courts.

There is no argument. The term cannot be said to be derogatory in the mainstream even if the lunatic fringe says they are offended by it. They are the equivalent of the hyper-sensitive plaintiff, and they've already been booted out of court once for their meritless arguments.

 

[Cotton]

That would be an interesting scene, to say the least.

Yeah it would. If it were even close to a reasonable scenario.

 

[Texas Ace]

Is this a long way of saying CNNSI is the only reputable source?

Well done.

 

[Cujo]

I am a little bit drunk. Also, I have some traces of Irish lineage.

According to Schmitty, that means I want to fight.... So bring it on, fuckers!!

Me too. I will fight you. In honor of my heritage.

 

[Cujo]

Just as early as 5 years ago this would have elicited a response from me that had me blowing up because of the obvious idiocy of the post, but I have grown in my age.

9% of Indians say it's offensive, so that answers whether it is offensive to Indians.

To try to paint me as a supreme racist is a reach and well beneath you.

Sweet Jesus.

 

[Cujo]

Cool, I'll get on that. You go ahead and let the 9% of Mexicans know that you think it's stupid they think the term Mexican is offensive.

Mexican is a nationality. Right? Surely you see the difference.

 

[Cotton]

Sweet Jesus.

That's probably offensive to well more than 9% of Christians because of the use of the Lord's name in vain.

 

[Cotton]

Mexican is a nationality. Right? Surely you see the difference.

People get pissed about the term Mexican. You may not see it, but trust me it happens.

My point stands.

 

[Cujo]

I'm sure there can be much stronger arguments made for the word "nigger" being used offensively. When it's not being used offensively, as happens all the time with that word by the way, no one has a problem with it because it's not meant in an offensive way.

Kinda like the team name "Washington Redskins" which a federal court held there was no evidence of disparagement.

Made up entirely of white people, I'll bet.

 

[Cotton]

Made up entirely of white people, I'll bet.

Damn right. We have made sure to keep only the white people in positions of authority. We feel it's working fairly well.

 

[Smitty]

Made up entirely of white people, I'll bet.

It's not the court's fault that the the indians had a shitty argument.

 

[Cujo]

Well, the name Washington Redskins caused 0% of Native Americans to be discriminated against, so there's that.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Board obtained a similar finding about the team name of Washington's professional football team. Neither the general public nor Native Americans are of one mind on the subject. Stapleton (2001, pp.26-27) reported that a survey conducted for the case showed that 46% of the general public (n = 301) and 37% of American Indians (n = 358) found “Redskin”to be an offensive term. Independently, Stapleton (2001) also studied the opinions of fans (n = 28) and Native Americans (n = 32) with Web sites: although 96% of the fans opposed changing the team name, 72% of indigenous peoples favored the name change (pp. 62-64).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_team_names_and_mascots_derived_from_indigenous_peoples

 

[Cujo]

People get pissed about the term Mexican. You may not see it, but trust me it happens.

My point stands.

Maybe you're right about that. But are you Mexican? I'm 1/4 by the way. And no, I'm not offended.

 

[Cujo]

Question. Regarding the "N" word, I see and hear black people use the word often and black comedians as well. There doesn't seem to be any offense taken in that setting so is it the word that is offensive or who is saying the word?

I have discussed this with black friends before and the general consensus is, it's all about context, e.g., "What's up, nigga!" is a lot different than "You fucking nigger!"

 

[Cujo]

We should probably get them all together for a round table.

Well, maybe, smartass. That would have a lot more credibility than an anonymous letter from 'Kevin'.

 

[Cujo]

I don't think the minority of professional victims and activists who are making up crap about the term Washington Redskins being offensive speak for Native American populations either. In any case, that article wasn't to prove definitely that Kevin speaks for the majority of Native Americans (no, the poll numbers do that instead), but rather to point out the logical arguments against repealing the name Washington Redskins. Namely in his last paragraph, where it states how the Redskins mascot is not depcited in a derogatory manner but rather a respectful one. This seriously undermines the argument that Native Americans can actually be offended by this term.

Ya, I can tell (after doing a search myself) than you found a survey with results skewed in your favor before posting it and this weak shit was all you could find.

 

[Cujo]

Consider the legal concept of the hyper-sensitive plaintiff. This is a conception in the area of tort law. The term "battery" means an unwelcome or offensive touching. You can be sued for touching someone in an unwelcome or offensive manner. You can be liable for doing this.

However, giving someone a friendly pat on the back can never, as a rule of law, be a battery. Even if you come across a victim (plaintiff) who has, say, a rare bone disorder where all his bones shatter at the slightest contact. This person could be seriously injured by a friendly tap. In this specific person's unique case, a friendly pat on the back could cause untold damage and would most certainly be both unwelcome and offensive.

Now, I can't tell that injured person that he can't be hurt by the friendly tap. But the law holds that because the victim/plaintiff here is "hyper-sensitive," the offender cannot be liable.

That is the case here. The vast majority of Native Americans aren't bothered by this. There is no demonstrable harm, as has been determined by federal courts.

There is no argument. The term cannot be said to be derogatory in the mainstream even if the lunatic fringe says they are offended by it. They are the equivalent of the hyper-sensitive plaintiff, and they've already been booted out of court once for their meritless arguments.

What a shitty comparison.

 

[Cujo]

Damn right. We have made sure to keep only the white people in positions of authority. We feel it's working fairly well.

Well now your argument makes a little more sense.

 

[Smitty]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Board obtained a similar finding about the team name of Washington's professional football team. Neither the general public nor Native Americans are of one mind on the subject.

FWIW, there are two separate points here. One is that there is no evidence of actual discrimination or disparagement that stems from the use of that word. This was the holding of a US Appeals Court in a US Patent and Trademark Case, which was later upheld in the form of the US Supreme Court electing to not take the case. I assume this is the US Patent and Trademark Board info this is referring to.

The second point is that the majority of Native Americans are not offended by the term. Note that "number or percentage of people offended" is a different standard than "whether actual harm can be demonstrated from the use of the word."

Each case is a losing argument for those seeking to say that the term Redskin should be barred from team usage.

Stapleton (2001, pp.26-27) reported that a survey conducted for the case showed that 46% of the general public (n = 301) and 37% of American Indians (n = 358) found “Redskin”to be an offensive term.

37% huh? That changes everything.

Independently, Stapleton (2001) also studied the opinions of fans (n = 28) and Native Americans (n = 32) with Web sites: although 96% of the fans opposed changing the team name, 72% of indigenous peoples favored the name change (pp. 62-64).

Ah... the Native Americans with web sites are on the side of abolishment though. That's a huge demographic.

From your same article:

In March 2001, Joseph Kolb (2001) reported the findings of a University New Mexico at Gallup poll of 458 Native Americans. The results were similar to those published in SI: 25% felt honored, 21% were not offended, 18% were partially offended, 6% were very offended, and 23% did not care

So who are the ones that have a huge problem?

Indian Country Today (ICT) (2001) published results of its survey of its American Indian Opinion Leaders, a group of self-selected Native Americans who offer feedback to the newspaper on issues of importance.In contrast with SI’s findings, respondents overwhelmingly held critical views of mascots and their implications: 81% found them to be “offensive and deeply disparaging”; 10% thought names and mascots were respectful; 73% believed they fostered a hostile environment; 75% agreed that they were a violation of antidiscrimination laws, and 69% indicated that funds should be withheld from schools with Native American mascots.

Who are these people?

a group of self-selected Native Americans who offer feedback to the newspaper on issues of importance

Ahhh. The cranks who have nothing better to do than write angry letters to local newspapers. The ones attending college? Overwhelmingly don't care.