Off Season goings on Leaguewide

and that's the way it should work, +1!

 

Not at all. You are a very, very simple-minded person who doesn't actually think for yourself. You have no intellectual sophistication or a Platonian sense of things being correct or false. You reject the notion of "Redskins" being offensive not because of any rational analysis on your part, but rather the typical Limbaugh-reasoning of "if liberals say this then I'm going to oppose it regardless! Rawr!" It's just like when Limbaugh listeners denied the existence of a hole in the ozone layer, or insist with absolute conviction that there is no human-caused global warming.

You're not an Indian. It's laughable that because you have some distantly in your ancestry, you pretend to be one. That's not only absurd, but insulting to people who actually are Indians. Watching you insist that "Redskins" isn't offensive because you have some Indian in your family tree is the same sort of nonsense as people who tell anti-semitic jokes but say that's alright because they have a Jewish grandfather. It's ridiculous.

Again, the big problem isn't your limited intellect. The big problem is that you're not a fundamentally honest person. You don't value "truth" enough to acknowledge something you wish wasn't true.

 

Matt Moore re-signed with Dolphins for $8 million over two years. I guess he likes the weather and cheerleaders because he surely would have had a shot at playing for Cleveland or Arizona.

 

you're a fuking egotist who believes your superior intelligence is so depends upon similarity of opinion.

it's not about whether anything's offensive or not (I never claimed redskin wasn't, except to me and others), my rejection is that the government or the courts shouldn't be used to shut down something that may be offensive to anyone because someone or group biotches about it. if Snyder decides to change the name because he finds it offensive, or for any other reason on his own, good for him. no problemo with me, imo

distant? my mother is 50% Powhatan and 25% Cherokee, disshonest I am not.

and just because I haven't lived on a reservation, nor my grandparents or their grandparents, doesn't mean they were less of native americans or not treated like shite sometimes because of it by some dolts. like my grandad (100% Powhatan) said: some folks are idiots, you can't hold it against everyone because they might look the same. and: names don't change who you are.

seems to me a great injun 'grandpa' had a better handle on things than many 'smart' idiots who live in today's world.

 

Actually some of the people I admire most (such as Camille Paglia) share almost none of my opinions. I admire based on sophistication of thought and devotion to "truth," meaning differentiation between what we would like to believe and what actually is. I used to be a Washington fan before the Panthers existed. I had a John Riggins poster on my wall. When I first heard complaints about the name I too rejected them, but then I had to acknowledge that it pretty obviously was offensive. I keep bringing up other names like "Blackskins" and "Slant Eyes" because the method of substitution is valuable for removing context. Washington fans are used to hearing their name and don't associate it with something offensive, so in that context it's understandably difficult to realize that it is actually an offensive term. Substitution allows you to see that, although most people stubbornly refuse to admit it even after they come to the proper realization.

Yes, it is. And your entire rants in this thread have been about how "redskins" isn't an offensive term and that people are getting too sensitive.

Even if that is true it would still make you only a small fraction. Because you supposedly have some Indian blood in your ancestry doesn't give you the authority to say that "Redskins" is ok because you personally aren't offended by it. You are not an Indian.

He probably did have a much better handle on things than you do.

 

Collin, I never said it wasn't offensive or that it shouldn't be (maybe I might of inferred that in my wording-if so , sorry. I simply said or meant it didn't offend me or others. It certainly didn't offend by grandad who was a huge Washington fan. He aslo refered to himself and my grandmother (and other native american family & friends) as 'injuns'. he said it proudly. he said he was literally a 'redskin fan'. so since I was a kid, this is what I observed. was it wrong for me to form an opinion that way? was I supposed to change my opinion on that after 3 or 4 deacades because some folks made some noise in the media or around conversely, even after he mentioned it was stoopid of them to do so, coming from....an actual redskin?

My whole point was using the government or courts to decide and shut down something, anything, that some find offensive is, well, offensive to me. whether its conservative or liberal.

37.5% is not a small fraction really, but you digress. now because my grandmother was 25% black, I would say you would be right if I said the n-word wasn't offensive.

 

If that was all you had said then I wouldn't have a problem with it. You repeatedly did say that it wasn't an offensive term and that "we have become such a thin-skinned pantywaist society running backwards as fast as we can in the name of progressivitism."

The government won't deny Washington the ability to use the term, just to have exclusivity in making money off of it. Basically, if the team wants to keep being offensive then it can, they simply have a cost associated with that decision. But it is a racist term, whether or not some people are ok with that.

 

Maybe they should change the name to Klansmen just to royally piss people off. I'm still waiting for some one to show me where in the constitution you have a right not to be offended. Just another case of the politically correct speech police in action.

 

Washington Bullets... oh wait they already tried that. Then how about Washing Mayors Caught In A Coke Sting?

 

Washington Lobbyists