Uh huh, sure. You want to continue to be obtuse, ignore your own exact words and promise some big reveal, go right ahead.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Washington Redskins name
- Thread starter blue4
- Start date
Again, no. The line between skeptical rhetoric and willful obtuseness isn't particularly subtle...
So, it's good to see a post from you sir. It's been a while since I've seen one.
-Mike
No, you're not. You claim to not know what's been provided for you in this very thread. That is not being up to speed.
Who said you couldn't disagree? You're clearly doing it and no one has stopped you. By the same token are people allowed to disagree with you? Or does the right to free speech only apply to you and those of your mindset?
Too obvious?
Your collection of straw men haven't been very effective. IMO of course. So if you're not doing what you're doing... what are you doing? The answer should be entertaining at the least.
True. The acts at PSU couldn't be reprehensible unless it happened to someone they knew. The tunnel vision some have is truly amazing. And saddening too.
A consensus (what constitutes that in your mind?) is required because...? These additional requirements being put on this situation are frankly silly. The idea that you have to be the offended party to see that something is offensive is silly. You could easily think of a situation that illustrates that point. Will you? Probably not if your participation here is any barometer. But I'm willing to bet that you know better.
Do you need a specific number of people or a percentage? Do they all have to be limited to the target of the term in question? Can thinking adults outside that target group have an opinion? Does that opinion matter?
Numbers are funny things and polls are even funnier. The number of tribes with an "official" position doesn't tell you how things actually break down. Let's say you have a tribe of 500 where they took an actual vote (adults only) and 251 said they weren't offend. Does the tribe's official position then round down the number who said they were offended to zero? That's what it amounts to when you cite something like that. Even though a very sizable percentage may have voted that way.
Sometimes the amount of BS that gets shoveled is a good thing. Because most know it when they see it. Or worse, do it.
Last edited:
Hey Mike. Good to see you too. I lay low these days, things got weird. Hopefully I'm not pushing too many buttons here.
...and the thread reaches it's point of inevitability. Context. I think it's morally wrong to have such a name for a team and if the people who are sensitive to the slur can build up enough steam to get the name changed, it should be changed. But at the end of the day, it's a sports team, not a group looking to actively oppress any persons of any particular race. There are groups who actively do that and their rights to free speech are protected. The football team just happens to have a moniker that is a racial slur. An unfortunate circumstance that the owners of the team could easily fix, for public relations reasons if nothing else. If they're at all intelligent (and not racist) I'd think they would.
Okay, I promised an explanation this morning. It was not to tease, but to allow time for additional research.
So here it is. I'm convinced. Not what you expected, I'm sure.
Many of you have been helpful in providing useful information. Others have been rude and insulting, but that is to be expected. There are those who can't argue points without being personally offensive. That indicates you have strong feelings, but don't have anything pertinent to share.
Yesterday's posts were for two reasons. One to get more information, Two to observe behavior. I was just curious to see how crazy people can get when confronted with something they believe is wrong.
So, yes. I believe there are enough people offended by it to stop using it. It is not a term used much in common speech, but to have it displayed that publically is insensitive. But, to those of you who find it necessary to sling insults when you disagree with someone, you are no better than the people you are complaining about.
Never everybody get back to practicing and have a wonderful day.
So here it is. I'm convinced. Not what you expected, I'm sure.
Many of you have been helpful in providing useful information. Others have been rude and insulting, but that is to be expected. There are those who can't argue points without being personally offensive. That indicates you have strong feelings, but don't have anything pertinent to share.
Yesterday's posts were for two reasons. One to get more information, Two to observe behavior. I was just curious to see how crazy people can get when confronted with something they believe is wrong.
So, yes. I believe there are enough people offended by it to stop using it. It is not a term used much in common speech, but to have it displayed that publically is insensitive. But, to those of you who find it necessary to sling insults when you disagree with someone, you are no better than the people you are complaining about.
Never everybody get back to practicing and have a wonderful day.
I have no compunctions about insulting someone being intellectually dishonest and willfully obtuse.
Thanks for the explanation. Seriously. But you do realize that you've just described trolling. You posted things to watch the reaction.
I'm gathering that you have also decided that the NFL team based in Washington DC should change their name. ?
Exactly. Especially on such a charged topic. Even if we downgrade the offense and called it "scientific research", it has at least let me know that I would be a lot less likely to engage in a conversation with Gravedigger in the future.
I mentioned that you weren't up to speed on this and you disagreed. Now you're confirming what you protested.
Wouldn't it make more sense, knowing what you don't know, to actually have something to base an opinion on before voicing one? TBH the time spent on all of those posts could've been used actually reading up on the subject, which you say you did after the fact. Free speech works so much better that way. Uninformed stances are largely a waste of time. IMO of course.
Compunctions? I don't think I've ever heard that word in my life. Time to google.
Are you saying that all women are trolls?
