Politically correctness madness

Pete · May 19, 2009

Is our society really on track or have we become so moronically offended by virtually everything we are going to become a homogeneous bunch of zombies?

Appeals court sides with Redskins on trademark - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

So the Redskins can keep their name and logo but it is based on a technicality. But what if later on someone finally gets in front of a judge and they get the "Cease and desist" order? Are we going to give teams a number so we don't offend Bears or Chiefs or the descendants of 49ers?

Instead of the Dallas Cowboys v. Washington Redskins it would be an exciting match up between the Dallas 6's and the Washingon 3's.

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

Pete said:
Is our society really on track or have we become so moronically offended by virtually everything we are going to become a homogeneous bunch of zombies?

Reanimated corpses, thank you.

muttdog · May 19, 2009

Larry Gude said:
Reanimated corpses, thank you.

Cant use that, i might offend dead people.

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

muttdog said:
Cant use that, i might offend dead people.

Hmm. Good point. I'll work on it...

desertrat · May 19, 2009

Pete said:
Is our society really on track or have we become so moronically offended by virtually everything we are going to become a homogeneous bunch of zombies?

Appeals court sides with Redskins on trademark - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

So the Redskins can keep their name and logo but it is based on a technicality. But what if later on someone finally gets in front of a judge and they get the "Cease and desist" order? Are we going to give teams a number so we don't offend Bears or Chiefs or the descendants of 49ers?

Instead of the Dallas Cowboys v. Washington Redskins it would be an exciting match up between the Dallas 6's and the Washingon 3's.

The Washington Native Americans. Nope just doesn't sound good. Maybe they could names other teams so no one is left out. The Atlanta Crackers sounds pretty good. Tennessee Hillbillies? San Fransisco Slanteyes? Dallas Wetbacks? New York Wops?

desertrat · May 19, 2009

desertrat said:
The Washington Native Americans. Nope just doesn't sound good. Maybe they could names other teams so no one is left out. The Atlanta Crackers sounds pretty good. Tennessee Hillbillies? San Fransisco Slanteyes? Dallas Wetbacks? New York Wops?

Baltimore Bruthas?

Toxick · May 19, 2009

Pete said:
Is our society really on track or have we become so moronically offended by virtually everything we are going to become a homogeneous bunch of zombies?

Reanimated Life-Impaired Americans, thankyouverymuch.

Pete · May 19, 2009

desertrat said:
The Washington Native Americans. Nope just doesn't sound good. Maybe they could names other teams so no one is left out. The Atlanta Crackers sounds pretty good. Tennessee Hillbillies? San Fransisco Slanteyes? Dallas Wetbacks? New York Wops?

Detroit Thugs
Buffalo Wings
New England Fishermen who of course play in Gortons Stadium.
Seatle Coffee Cups
San Diego Surfers
Arizona Sand
Kansas City Ribeyes
ST. Louis
Miami Latinos

Toxick · May 19, 2009

Larry Gude said:
Reanimated corpses, thank you.

D'oh!

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

desertrat said:
The Washington Native Americans. Nope just doesn't sound good. Maybe they could names other teams so no one is left out. The Atlanta Crackers sounds pretty good. Tennessee Hillbillies? San Fransisco Slanteyes? Dallas Wetbacks? New York Wops?

That illustrates the absurdity perfectly. Washington Redskins is not used as a derisive thing. It is, like Yankees, Red Sox, Steelers, Braves, Capitals, etc, supposed to be a moniker of honor and courage.

However, for the fun of it, if American Indians find 'Redskin' offensive who are we to tell them otherwise?

I mean, what if we called them the Washington N1ggers and argued that we lover our N1ggers and all that is best and honorable about them?

What if we called them the Washington Whores and tried to argue that we simply mean to honor politicians and all that is best about them?

If "Redskin" is in fact a derisive term, then we are arguing that 'Redneck" is simply to honor that which is best about rednecks.

It would be like saying "Dallas Wetbacks" is meant to celebrate the get up and go of those who got up and went away from poverty in Mexico to their fortunes in the US.

And so on. If Redskin is the same as n1gger, wetback, redneck, wop, and so forth, that is the argument and we can't just say Redskin is ok if we mean well yet we can never say n1gger even if we mean well.

:popcorn:

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

Toxick said:
Reanimated Life-Impaired Americans, thankyouverymuch.

That's totally politically acceptable! Well done!

Pete · May 19, 2009

Larry Gude said:
That illustrates the absurdity perfectly. Washington Redskins is not used as a derisive thing. It is, like Yankees, Red Sox, Steelers, Braves, Capitals, etc, supposed to be a moniker of honor and courage.

However, for the fun of it, if American Indians find 'Redskin' offensive who are we to tell them otherwise?

I mean, what if we called them the Washington N1ggers and argued that we lover our N1ggers and all that is best and honorable about them?

What if we called them the Washington Whores and tried to argue that we simply mean to honor politicians and all that is best about them?

If "Redskin" is in fact a derisive term, then we are arguing that 'Redneck" is simply to honor that which is best about rednecks.

It would be like saying "Dallas Wetbacks" is meant to celebrate the get up and go of those who got up and went away from poverty in Mexico to their fortunes in the US.

And so on. If Redskin is the same as n1gger, wetback, redneck, wop, and so forth, that is the argument and we can't just say Redskin is ok if we mean well yet we can never say n1gger even if we mean well.

But we are talking about 6, yes 6 people who range in age from 16 to 24. If the courts allow this it will never end. There is not a single item, name logo, idea, moniker, description that you could propose that would not have 6 people who are "offended". And since when is being "not offensive" a constitutional requirement?

MMDad · May 19, 2009

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

The 'skins need to give it up and realize that they will eventually have to get a new name that isn't quite so demeaning and doesn't carry the negative connotations.

Maybe the "Maryland Redskins" or the "PG Redskins."

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

MMDad said:
Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

The 'skins need to give it up and realize that they will eventually have to get a new name that isn't quite so demeaning and doesn't carry the negative connotations.

Maybe the "Maryland Redskins" or the "PG Redskins."

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

Pete said:
But we are talking about 6, yes 6 people who range in age from 16 to 24. If the courts allow this it will never end. There is not a single item, name logo, idea, moniker, description that you could propose that would not have 6 people who are "offended". And since when is being "not offensive" a constitutional requirement?

I am not making the argument that Washington Redskins is a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.

I am asking what is 'Redskins"? Is it like n1gger? Spic? Wop? Heeb? Wetback?Redneck? Squaw? Ho? Or is it like "Brave" or "Warriors" or "Indians"?

desertrat · May 19, 2009

Larry Gude said:
I am not making the argument that Washington Redskins is a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.

I am asking what is 'Redskins"? Is it like n1gger? Spic? Wop? Heeb? Wetback?Redneck? Squaw? Ho? Or is it like "Brave" or "Warriors" or "Indians"?

I figured it was derogatory. Like when they called us pale faces and shot us full of arrows. We'd say, "them dirty redskins".

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

desertrat said:
I figured it was derogatory. Like when they called us pale faces and shot us full of arrows. We'd say, "them dirty redskins".

OK, so, we'll put you down in the Dan Snyder Wet Dream category; he gets to go through the incredible marketing opportunity of renaming the skins.

:buddies:

desertrat · May 19, 2009

Larry Gude said:
OK, so, we'll put you down in the Dan Snyder Wet Dream category; he gets to go through the incredible marketing opportunity of renaming the skins.

The Washington Wachovia Wankers?

Larry Gude · May 19, 2009

desertrat said:
The Washington Wachovia Wankers?

What name would Dan Snyder like best? IT DOESN'T matter! Just as long as it's a PR-apalooza!

belvak · May 19, 2009

Larry Gude said:
I am not making the argument that Washington Redskins is a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.

I am asking what is 'Redskins"? Is it like n1gger? Spic? Wop? Heeb? Wetback?Redneck? Squaw? Ho? Or is it like "Brave" or "Warriors" or "Indians"?

If you do a Yahoo search on "redskins," you get 75,600,000 results about the football team...

redskins - Yahoo! Search Results

Yet, not one about the lowly Redskin Potato. How sad...

Politically correctness madness

Repete

Strung Out

New Member

Strung Out

0_0

0_0

Splat

Repete

Splat

Strung Out

Strung Out

Repete

Lem Putt

Strung Out

Strung Out

0_0

Strung Out

0_0

Strung Out

Happy Camper

Attachments