Washington Redtails? LMAO

[Smitty]

This board is full of smug white assholes that have no fucking idea what it is like to be victimized by racism.

Please tell me what it's like. I suspect you are a smug white asshole who simply thinks he knows what it's like for someone else to be victimized by racism.

 

[Cotton]

I do. And that's not a marriage acceptance.

The term was absolutely derogatory in use back in the day. It was the exact counterpart to nigger. But now that we have power shifted the color spectrum in this country that seems to be forgotten. The idea of racism is so one-sided anymore it is silly to even use the term anymore. It means nothing.

 

[Smitty]

Nobody gives a shit, Tonto.

... which is how we know the argument is full of shit. Thanks for proving our point.

HTTR

 

[Cotton]

Please tell me what it's like. I suspect you are a smug white asshole who simply thinks he knows what it's like for someone else to be victimized by racism.

Bipo = white guilt.

Still.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The term was absolutely derogatory in use back in the day. It was the exact counterpart to nigger. But now that we have power shifted the color spectrum in this country that seems to be forgotten. The idea of racism is so one-sided anymore it is silly to even use the term anymore. It means nothing.

If you are going to drive by my place be sure your horn works.

 

[Kbrown]

I disagree that it inherently carries that connotation, nor do I think it would be the intent of a bunch of Catholic clerics to name their mascot with the intent of offending an ethnic group that had been persecuted in the country's history at least partially for its Catholicism. And anyway, I dont consider the Fighting Cherokee offensive, when the alcoholic Native American is a stereotype. But the Fighting Micks or the Redskins? Just tasteless imo.

 

[Cotton]

I disagree that it inherently carries that connotation, nor do I think it would be the intent of a bunch of Catholic clerics to name their mascot with the intent of offending an ethnic group that had been persecuted in the country's history at least partially for its Catholicism. And anyway, I dont consider the Fighting Cherokee offensive, when the alcoholic Native American is a stereotype. But the Fighting Micks or the Redskins? Just tasteless imo.

IMO is right. That's what makes PC shit like this such a subjective discussion.

 

[Smitty]

I disagree that it inherently carries that connotation, nor do I think it would be the intent of a bunch of Catholic clerics to name their mascot with the intent of offending an ethnic group that had been persecuted in the country's history at least partially for its Catholicism.

I don't think it was the intent of the Catholic clerics to offend. I don't think it was the intent of the Washington Redskins to offend either.

Stereotypes back in the 1940s were humorous and were used in the mainstream without being offensive. Then people changed, not the words.

And anyway, I dont consider the Fighting Cherokee offensive, when the alcoholic Native American is a stereotype. But the Fighting Micks or the Redskins? Just tasteless imo.

I don't find any of them offensive. But Fighting Irish is definitely just as stereotypical and "derogatory" as Redskins. The only way it isn't the same, is by measuring the number of people who make a stink about it. But in this victim culture we live in, minority groups are encouraged to feel victimized, so that's why you see outcry over the one term and not the other.

 

[Kbrown]

IMO is right. That's what makes PC shit like this such a subjective subject.

I remember saying one time that it annoyed me how the press references Mel Gibson's Catholicism every time he does something horrible, and you made similar points to the ones you are making here. So I don't think it is about one word versus sentences. I think you are one of those "GET OVER IT!" tough guy types. Which is fine, I just disagree.

 

[Cotton]

The only way it isn't the same, is by measuring the number of people who make a stink about it. But in this victim culture we live in, minority groups are encouraged to feel victimized, so that's why you see outcry over the one term and not the other.

Yep.

 

[Kbrown]

Am I personally offended? No. I just understand that the term carries an inherently negative connotation and is just unnecessary.

 

[Cotton]

I remember saying one time that it annoyed me how the press references Mel Gibson's Catholicism every time he does something horrible, and you made similar points to the ones you are making here. So I don't think it is about one word versus sentences. I think you are one of those "GET OVER IT!" tough guy types. Which is fine, I just disagree.

Let's compare the two.

One word: Mick

Sentence: That guy is a Catholic prick. His belief system makes him a douche bag.

 

[Kbrown]

Let's compare the two.

One word: Mick

Sentence: That guy is a prick.

"Mick," if not said among friends in jest, is a slight to the individual and to his heritage, ancestors, etc. Prick is just a general vulgarity.

Are you really arguing that sentences are inherently more offensive? Seriously? Why, because they have an accompanying verb?

 

[Cotton]

"Mick," if not said among friends in jest, is a slight to the individual and to his heritage, ancestors, etc. Prick is just a general vulgarity.

Are you really arguing that sentences are inherently more offensive? Seriously? Why, because they have an accompanying verb?

I edited it a tad because I figured you would go here.

Yes, I believe that full offensive intent can be more disclosed in a sentence versus one word.

At least to less sensitive people.

 

[Kbrown]

I edited it a tad because I figured you would go here.

Yes, I believe that full offensive intent can be more disclosed in a sentence versus one word.

At least to less sensitive people.

Why is either one acceptable? I have to choose ignorant bullshit now? How about neither.

 

[Smitty]

Why is either one acceptable?

Why can't both be acceptable? Nobody is using it in an offensive way. It's a term that doesn't even have any meaning to the people using it other than a representation of their favorite football team.

If a small percentage of the people hearing it are offended, that's their problem.

 

[Cotton]

Why is either one acceptable? I have to choose ignorant bullshit now? How about neither.

How about the term midget?

 

[Cotton]

Oriental

Mexican

Both offensive now from what I can tell.

 

[Kbrown]

People have license to call each other shitty names without being challenged. We get it.

 

[Kbrown]

Why can't both be acceptable? Nobody is using it in an offensive way. It's a term that doesn't even have any meaning to the people using it other than a representation of their favorite football team.

If a small percentage of the people hearing it are offended, that's their problem.

I was referring to the false choice Iamtdg was giving.