StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:07 PM) But you keep saying it's offensive. How do you know if you're not part of the group? sorry for the brevity, insert "because AmerIndians believe it is offensive" after every time I said it's offensive.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 04:03 PM) Do I need to boil it back to to meme form to keep it simple? I know what I am saying can't be captioned in a picture. That isn't my goal here. I think you need to get around to explaining why it's good to keep using a racial slur.

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. There are multiple AmerIndian groups that have worked to get the name changed. Why is that not sufficient to stop using a racial slur? Why is it so important to some to continue to use racial slurs?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) Lol, I love this. He can't, but you can because you agree with the group. Gotcha. Weird, I thought I explicitly said already that I can't because I'm not the target of it? Oh, wait, I did! It might. What if a plurality do? What if a substantial minority do?

Racial slurs targeted at disenfranchised minorities, especially those with the history of that word, no. Certainly not within "40-50 years," which is still within living memory of many people who had to literally risk their lives in order to get their basic civil liberties. If you're going to argue that there are bigger issues facing the AmerIndian community (there are! literally no one on this planet would disagree!), you can't argue that it's also okay to continue using racial slurs and caricatures targeted at them because they may not be used as frequently anymore (except every time they are used to depict an AmerIndian as the NFL team's logo!)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:43 PM) That should be the real test here. You can't use Chicago N**** because it clearly doesn't have the same meaning or context. If the use of "n*****" went out of style 40-50 years ago, and we rarely, if ever, hear anyone use it as a slur today, and a professional league maintained that name throughout that time, then yeah, i'd say keep it. jesus christ that is just awful

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) The teen pregnancy rate in the united states has dropped DRAMATICALLY from when many of us were born. so has the crime rate

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:51 PM) This is being vastly over-complicated. Redskin was, for a few hundred years, and still is, a racist insult. Just like "the N word". And, just like that word, the name was more flippantly and callously applied some time ago. So we have a football team with that name. The people who are targets of it - as well as people who feel that they've gotten a pretty s***ty shaft already from this country - are offended. Lots of them. In fact from what I've read, just about every AmerInd person or leader that's been asked is offended. To me, that is plenty enough to make a change. An insulting, racist name that offends most of a group? Change it. Finally, as for the whole "PC Police" argument, that always cracks me up. What you are seeing here - people putting pressure on a business to make a positive change - is a great and quite American thing. It's cool to watch, and it symbolizes one of the positives of both capitalism and free speech. I hope the name changes, and I think it will, probably pretty soon. Really at this point it's just the owner (who has been shown to be quite the model citizen) holding out, and I think he eventually caves to that economic pressure. That will be a good day. good post

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) Everyone is targeted by slurs. Some society has given power to and those are bad, most are cute and funny, and are perfectly acceptable in both common usage and in most other forms. Those we didn't give this mystical power to. Doesn't matter if someone dresses up as one of those stereotypes. You don't get to decide whether a group targeted by a racial slur gets to find it "cute and funny" and whether or not it matters if they're subjected to racial slurs and stereotypes. Members of that group do. So which argument are you actually making here? That there are more important issues, or that this isn't even a racial slur in the first place and there's no reason to change it?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) Except all reality shows that you are wrong. No one is doing a damned thing about the bigger problem, because no one cares to. The reality is much to complex for that, which is why the argument gets boiled down to OMGREDSKINS, instead of what the real problem is. It is why this entire thread is pointed at the nickname, instead of the real problem, when the reality is that the nickname doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things. But we have our meme that we can post! Look it is an Indian and a White guy in a headdress! great so when do we get to the part where the continued use of a racial slur for an NFL team name is anything but dumb and s***ty and an explanation of why it's okay to continue to use that racial slur?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) Who are you to say that it will? I'm not someone targeted by the slur, but there are people who are who want it changed. Why should we accept ss2k5's casual dismissal of their concerns as unimportant?

shorter version: while there is merit to the claim that people will get up in arms about the racial slur and, once that's finally and rightfully changed, go back to largely ignoring American Indian issues, that is not actually a justification for continuing to use the racial slur.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:21 PM) In other words...shouldn't we first try to fix the Native American situation vs. focus on the name of the football team. Or at least that is my interpretation of what you are saying. "Fixing the Native American situation" is a pretty huge, complex problem. One piece of that problem is the continued use and defense of racial slurs targeted at that group, despite the requests of Native Americans. Changing the racist name of the team does not impede progress in other areas. If anything, the ongoing resistance to changing to something other than a racial slur means that attention has to be continually focused on that issue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 03:20 PM) It is a cause du jour. It is way for someone to claim victory over someone else, and achieve literally nothing that makes the daily life of someone a better thing. Reframing this into something that can be won as an argument achieves even less. Who are you to say that an NFL team no longer using a racial slur would not improve anyone else's life? this is a false choice. there is nothing that says if you want the racial slur to stop being used, you can't/don't care about anything else. "meme" makes no sense in this context, either. All you've said so far is that "there are more important things." That is obviously true, but that doesn't mean the less important things that are really trivially easy to do if literally one person would stop being a jackass (Snyder) can't or shouldn't be done as well. Noting that there are larger American Indian issues does not justify the continued use of a racial slur as the name of an NFL team.

I'm still struggling to see anything in there that justifies continued usage of a racial slur or how it will somehow empower people who are the target of that slur.

turn off the news, get outside, enjoy life

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) The cops raided a church where people were allegedly sleeping. Church leaders denied it. Another cop shown last night telling people he was gonna f***ing kill them and told the media to f*** off when asked his name. Both sides are at fault in these protests. It's scary to think after a week and a half, these protests still could get really really violent. Do you guys agree with the church leader who said this is the showdown with the cops everybody predicted? Then you look at what is going on internationally with Putin, North Korea, the bastards who beheaded the American. Is this the start of the end? Seriously. here is a link: http://gawker.com/reports-aid-station-adja...olic-1624563427

I posted that a few pages ago, yes that was absolutely ridiculous. Verbally challenging the police doesn't justify beating, spraying, tasering or shooting anyone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 12:44 PM) Putting artificial barriers between yourself and another race, perfectly acceptable as an answer. Who cares they all are confined to reservations and were slaughtered by the millions... just don't call a football team "redskins". This is the same logic that goes into book banning. Someone is offended by the contents of a book, well we can't have that, let's ban it! We can't have an honest discussion of the history and problems behind the topic? Nah, that would make someone uncomfortable. Let's keep the ignorance fully in place. Explain how having an NFL team named the Washington R*dskins: 1) doesn't put barriers between American Indians and people who embrace or defend that use of the racial slur 2) somehow furthers the cause of the mistreatment of American Indians 3) lessens ignorance And explain how not having an NFL team named with a racial slur: 1) builds artifical barriers 2) prevents anyone from caring about other AmerIndian issues 3) embraces ignorance

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) I want the problem to be solved, not hidden away from public view with a few farcical shows of "caring" by banning a term. you know, there's a very specific, narrow problem that can be solved by changing the name from something racist to something else. that problem is that an NFL team has a racial slur as its name. addressing that problem doesn't mean no other problems can be addressed, and the existence of other problems doesn't mean that problem shouldn't be addressed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) Of course they are, because white people can never complain about anything. White males especially. the only context it ever seems to be brought up in is when people are trying to make excuses for racist names/caricatures.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) I want the problem to be solved, not hidden away from public view with a few farcical shows of "caring" by banning a term. using this logic, we should have a team called the Chicago N*****s because hey, otherwise we're hiding that s***ty, racist term away from the public view. And that's bad, for some reason. edit: and also, for some reason, removing a racist team name means you can't address any other issues related to American Indians?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) Then the first step would be to gather signatures from these other people and speak to university officials and laying out your points as to why you find the name Fighting Irish offensive and unacceptable. Maybe you can forward it on to a few other websites and display your outrage over the topic. People that are outspoken and are intelligent in doing so tend to get listened to. On the other hand, these ND complaints are bad faith on their face and only ever advanced by people trying to defend Redskins, chief wahoo etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2014 -> 01:10 PM) I'm pretty sure you can't charge someone with a crime that isn't on the books. As I understand it, justification of deadly force is a defense from a charge. he can still be charged with murder or manslaughter, it would just be that he might have a defense against those charges. You also can't enforce a statute that's already been ruled unconstitutional. Or, you can try, but you're going to get smacked down by the courts at some point. It's not uncommon for states to leave unconstitutional laws on the books but to stop enforcing them, e.g. several states still have statutes that are clearly in violation of Lawrence, they just don't enforce them and the legislature hasn't bothered to officially remove them.

Here is the relevant SC case, Tennessee v Garner. This is the holding: 3.(2)(a) doesn't meet that standard. They can't use deadly force to effect an arrest just because someone has committed a felony, there has to be a significant threat of death or serious injury. I don't think you can argue such a threat existed if we're assuming (for argument) that Wilson fired at Brown while he was fleeing or when he turned around with his hands up.