StrangeSox

But that continues the mistaken assumption that one precludes the other, that there is some finite amount of "care" and that if I think that racist name should changed, it means I have to take some care points from another category. Some of them obviously care enough to organize against it. A majority find it offensive. There are obviously more important issues, and no one has said otherwise. That more important issues exist isn't an excuse to do nothing about an issue that is easily fixable. All that has to happen is for Snyder to stop being am asshole, and that's more likely if people would stop making weak excuses for racial slurs. Why are you putting AmerIndians in scare quotes? If my posts are intellectual dick measuring, what does that make the posts of people defending the use of racial slurs?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 08:01 PM) NEVERMIND. This is going no where. I should have walked away much earlier. I know, right? Flailing and then refusing to ever actually justify or even explain your point is kinda your thing.

I'm asking you to actually back up your claim that it was at one point racist. Well, that's part of what I'm asking. There are other questions regarding your argument in that post, too! It is also the term that American Indians ask be called, and I see no reason to reject their self-identification.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 05:40 PM) It is a term of historical ignorance and racism assigned by colonialists. There is no such historical figure as an Indian, or an American Indian, just like there is no group that is a Redskin. There were tribes and nations all over these lands. Not a one of them would have self identifed as an Indian. They are Iroquois, or Pottawattomie, or whatever their historical nations were. It is just as historically of a loaded term as any others. I'm sure you have copious citations for your assertion that it was originally used and perceived as a racially derogatory term, right? I mean there were also French and English, but at some point a larger identity of "European" still emerged. American Indians still have their tribal identities, but they also embrace the larger category. You need to show that the origins of "Indian" weren't just ignorance but deliberate malice and that it was perceived as such. I suspect you will have a difficult time given that the term predates modern conceptions of race and that early colonists had no problem continuing to distinguish between individual tribes, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise. That still doesn't address why we should continue to use a word today that is unquestionably historically racist and still perceived that way, though. Why do you assume that one day it will no longer be perceived as racist by American Indians when plenty of other racial slurs remain racial slurs? How long might that take? Why should present-day American Indians who object to that term now suffer continued insult for the sake of white people who hope they'll eventually get over it? Should it be acceptable to go around saying other racial slurs on the hopes that they will one day stop being offensive? Why is it so important to keep using these words that express racist ideas, anyway?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 05:08 PM) See above. And it's not about "wishing" to use it. You've got a word that no longer means what it used to mean. It has an entirely different interpretation now. The word is still a racial slur that's long been used as the name of a football team with an American Indian as it's logo. Even in the context of the team, it refers to American Indians

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 05:11 PM) So if someone were to say Washington Redskins to you, the first thing you think is an American Indian. Is that right? I'm not sure why you think this helps your case. The logo of said team is an Indian. The link is still blatant.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) Indians is a proper and scientific name for a group of people (though of course it is sort of hilariously inaccurate). In fact Native Americans was added later as an attempt to be more sensitive (or PC if you like), but then those people themselves in many cases felt that was just as inaccurate as Indians. That's why American Indians is the way you now, again, often see the groups termed in academic papers and textbooks. It was never an insult, unless terms like "white" or "Irish" or "people" are also insults. Indian and Redskin are in no way interchangeable in their tone - only in the people they point at. fun fact, the terminology/concept of "white people" or a "white race" originated in the late 16th century. A lot of our modern racial concepts weren't really formed until the slave trade was in its heyday and needed justification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 05:01 PM) Come on. Saying Redskins in 2014 means you are referring to an NFL team, not an American Indian. You know that's true. No one is saying "yeah we got a real issue with those Redskins out west. Really gotta do something about that Redskins problem." An NFL team that's named after a racial slur and has an AmerIndian as its logo.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:58 PM) Because if people don't interpret the word as being directed or referring to a certain group, how can it be a slur? I'm sure we can find examples of hundreds of words that USED to be bad, but no one recognizes them that way anymore, and we use them everyday. How on earth can you separate the name of the NFL team from AmerIndians? Their logo is an AmerIndian. Anyway, that doesn't change what the group that's the target of the slur feels about the slur.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:56 PM) Count me on the side that hates censorship of all speech, not just what i think is good speech. Forcing the change of language to satisfy a minority isn't good policy in general, especially when no one uses that offensive language as a slur anymore. Why is it so important to you that it remain publicly acceptable to continue using racial slurs? What other racial slurs that have been been subjected to "censorship" by no longer being acceptable socially do you wish you could still use?

I'm going to need a citation that "Indian" was used as a racial slur. That it was a mistaken assignment by colonists doesn't make it a racial slur. More importantly, it's the self-identification preferred by a majority of American Indians. And no, I don't think anyone really knows what you're talking about, because you haven't gotten around to explaining how a non-AmerIndian group continuing to use a racial slur against the wishes of a majority of AmerIndians will somehow make it not a racial slur at some undefined point in the future. Nor have you explained why it's okay to continue offending AmerIndians today with the use of the racial slur and why that's preferable to simply no longer using the racial slur.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:36 PM) It isn't that the nature of the word has changed. It's that we are evolving as a society in our reaction to hurling insults. for some reason I'll never understand, some people think this is a bad thing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:47 PM) When the basis of changing the name is how offensive it is, and the people claiming it's offensive happen to be mostly white people in need of a cause, I think it puts the issue in proper perspective. It's another rush to be outraged and change something that really doesn't need to be changed and won't cause a bit of difference in how the world operates. this can be flipped around pretty easily to point out how many non-AmerIndians are quick to get outraged at the idea of the name being changed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:43 PM) But no one does this, and hasn't for a very, very long time. That's why this case is different. Again, let's poll 100 people and how many do we honestly think relate Washington Redskins to a football team or an actual person/tribe? why should we care whether 100 non-AmerIndians find a racial slur targeted at AmerIndians to be an offensive racial slur?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:36 PM) While you seem to believe it is simple, it is not. This isn't something that can be put into a cute little box, so you can apply an easily understood label to it, and skip along your merry way having avenged the unfortunate souls, while not having achieved anything of substance. So you can keep trying to lay the trap to win the internet and drop a boulder on my head, but you are wasting your time. The real discussion is there is you want to have it. If you want to keep raging, have at it. I'm not sure why you're seeing so much "rage." That seems more like another evasion tool from ever bothering to explain yourself. How will the continued use of a racial slur as the name of multi-million dollar franchise further the cause of AmerIndians? How will it take the power out of the word to have an overhwleming non-AmerIndian fanbase using a racial slur that AmerIndians find offensive?

Officer tells people livestreaming the Ferguson protests to go f*** themselves, threatens to shoot them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbR824FKpU The ACLU sent a letter requesting the officer's removal from the area, and he was: http://www.aclu-mo.org/newsviews/2014/08/2...opriate-officer

"we've been using this racial slur for decades and you're only just NOW complaining?!" isn't exactly a good defense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:30 PM) lol. I NEED IT SIMPLE! The question is simple and direct. Your answer doesn't necessarily need to be, but so far all you've provided are some platitudes without explanation (take the power out of words instead of being censors) or irrelevant evasions (meme meme meme, there are more important issues). Why is it okay to continue to use a racial slur? What purpose do you believe that its continued use serves?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:29 PM) Lol, of course it was. Sigh. Even if we want to treat them as equally valid, a months-old survey is more relevant than a decade-old survey.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:26 PM) That's a pretty radical shift from the study I linked to. yes, and that 10-year old study has been criticized for poor methodology http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/...s-one-poll-time.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:24 PM) Guessing here. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) From this summer: http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf sorry, should have said substantial majority.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:22 PM) I have, but they don't fit your meme, which is exactly what you are doing here. You want to boil this down to one cute and simple sentence so it fits in a meme. If you don't get it by now, you don't care to get it. Why is it okay to continue to use this racial slur? Feel free to reference previous posts where you have answered this simple, direct question.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:00 PM) Serious question, do you have a link to this supposed percentage? I hear people saying that all the time, but nobody ever provides evidence. You have the same dozen or so groups that speak out about it, so of course you hear them. I know I have read stories where some Indian leaders have said pretty much that they don't give a s*** about the name one way or the other, but can't remember where I saw them. I will try and look for them. From this summer: http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:15 PM) You'll just move the goalposts like you have this entire thread to reframe the argument into something else. Explain Outrage Explain Outrage I think we covered all of that already. You're using terms like "goalposts" and "meme," but I'm not sure you know what they actually mean. I've been pretty consistent in asking you to explain why it's okay to keep using a racial slur. I've also consistently asked you to explain why stopping using that racial slur is worse for AmerIndian causes than continuing to use it. You've done nothing but hand-waive that away and insist that not using racial slurs is akin to censorship, and that really nobody should find them offensive in the first place. What you've continually failed to actually address are the original goal posts. Regardless of your insistence that they shouldn't, substantial numbers of AmerIndians find the continued use of this racial slur offensive. Now, complete the following sentence: "Nevertheless, Dan Snyder should continue to use a racial slur as his team's name because ____________." That's the original goalpost, and you keep trying to talk about other things.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:06 PM) As you are so fond of saying, 'links please'. http://www.fox23.com/news/news/native-amer...e-change/nggN8/