I am a rancid shitlib on the Redskins debate, just fucking change it
| spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Talking Marvelous Office Mother | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Vermilion Talented Sweet Tailpipe | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Vermilion Talented Sweet Tailpipe | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | hairraiser ungodly cuck digit ratio | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | hairless trump supporter | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | hairraiser ungodly cuck digit ratio | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | hairraiser ungodly cuck digit ratio | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | hairraiser ungodly cuck digit ratio | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Vermilion Talented Sweet Tailpipe | 11/26/17 | | Talking Marvelous Office Mother | 11/26/17 | | shimmering unholy useless brakes | 11/27/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | Bistre shaky hospital | 11/27/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/27/17 | | Bistre shaky hospital | 11/27/17 | | Beta transparent deer antler organic girlfriend | 11/26/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | sable anal state elastic band | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Mahogany curious crotch | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | Mahogany curious crotch | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | thriller walnut parlour mood | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Twinkling clown bawdyhouse | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | thriller walnut parlour mood | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | thriller walnut parlour mood | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | thriller walnut parlour mood | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | thriller walnut parlour mood | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | thriller walnut parlour mood | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | thriller walnut parlour mood | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | bull headed business firm | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | bull headed business firm | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | bull headed business firm | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | bull headed business firm | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad | 11/26/17 | | fiercely-loyal kitchen gunner | 11/27/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | fiercely-loyal kitchen gunner | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | electric marketing idea | 11/26/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | cerise dashing cuckoldry dilemma | 11/26/17 | | Vermilion Talented Sweet Tailpipe | 11/26/17 | | Mildly Autistic Blood Rage | 11/27/17 | | Excitant Church Building Milk | 11/26/17 | | hairless trump supporter | 11/26/17 | | Cracking Point Generalized Bond | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Twinkling clown bawdyhouse | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Twinkling clown bawdyhouse | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad | 11/27/17 | | Twinkling clown bawdyhouse | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Amber cheese-eating coffee pot boistinker | 11/27/17 | | Amber cheese-eating coffee pot boistinker | 11/27/17 | | hairless trump supporter | 11/26/17 | | Alcoholic travel guidebook theater | 11/26/17 | | hairless trump supporter | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | Unhinged corner | 11/26/17 | | fishy angry genital piercing black woman | 11/26/17 | | pea-brained resort mexican | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | pea-brained resort mexican | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | pea-brained resort mexican | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | pea-brained resort mexican | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | naked avocado round eye | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Self-absorbed Ebony Death Wish Theater Stage | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | big jap | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | heady red field | 11/26/17 | | slap-happy indirect expression doctorate | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Twinkling clown bawdyhouse | 11/26/17 | | heady red field | 11/26/17 | | Buff ratface | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Soul-stirring glassy becky | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Soul-stirring glassy becky | 11/26/17 | | vigorous gold antidepressant drug | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Federal Provocative Rehab Messiness | 11/26/17 | | Glittery station | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Disrespectful foreskin therapy | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Glittery station | 11/26/17 | | out-of-control school cafeteria | 11/26/17 | | Spruce Racy Fanboi Goal In Life | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | stimulating piazza sex offender | 11/26/17 | | Filthy stirring whorehouse | 11/26/17 | | big jap | 11/26/17 | | contagious tan hissy fit | 11/26/17 | | French blue area | 11/27/17 | | multi-colored poppy windowlicker | 11/26/17 | | stimulating piazza sex offender | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | multi-colored poppy windowlicker | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | Motley Pale School | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | multi-colored poppy windowlicker | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | startling aromatic hall | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | arousing chrome private investor | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | arousing chrome private investor | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | arousing chrome private investor | 11/27/17 | | Smoky preventive strike | 11/26/17 | | Cracking Point Generalized Bond | 11/26/17 | | Twinkling clown bawdyhouse | 11/26/17 | | outnumbered coldplay fan weed whacker | 11/26/17 | | hateful razzle philosopher-king skinny woman | 11/26/17 | | outnumbered coldplay fan weed whacker | 11/26/17 | | hateful razzle philosopher-king skinny woman | 11/26/17 | | outnumbered coldplay fan weed whacker | 11/26/17 | | Cracking Point Generalized Bond | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | contagious tan hissy fit | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | laughsome jade mad-dog skullcap | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/26/17 | | laughsome jade mad-dog skullcap | 11/26/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | laughsome jade mad-dog skullcap | 11/27/17 | | Beady-eyed charcoal plaza | 11/27/17 | | laughsome jade mad-dog skullcap | 11/27/17 | | Sticky parlor gaming laptop | 11/26/17 | | bull headed business firm | 11/26/17 | | Sticky parlor gaming laptop | 11/26/17 | | bull headed business firm | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | laughsome jade mad-dog skullcap | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | laughsome jade mad-dog skullcap | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Black codepig university | 11/27/17 | | Maize stead | 11/27/17 | | Black codepig university | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | dead slippery turdskin location | 11/27/17 | | spectacular roast beef | 11/27/17 | | Twinkling clown bawdyhouse | 11/27/17 | | Autistic Boyish Shrine Idea He Suggested | 11/27/17 | | carnelian shitlib set | 11/27/17 | | Buff ratface | 11/27/17 | | shimmering unholy useless brakes | 11/27/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 26th, 2017 4:39 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
It's stupid and we should change it if it offends any indigenous, Native American, First Nations people. There is no reason to keep it save for white cultural belligerence.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34775711)
|
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:02 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
You find no moral fault in how we treated First Nations people? Are you seriously arguing that it was simply the inevitable consequence of the advancement of civilization and the degree that our society benefitted from their loss carries no moral culpability?
If that's the case, do you think it's cool to call a football team by other racist monikers, or is 'Redskins' some kind of special category that we can create through a tortured rereading of history?
Edit: LOL at your near total rewrite and editing after I responded.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34775864) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 1:02 AM Author: Bistre shaky hospital
guess what the indians call themselves? indians.
in both canada and the us.
first nations, natives, etc are terms used by dumb white women.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779181)
|
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 1:22 AM Author: Bistre shaky hospital
i had a job during school that had hundreds of random indians self-identify their ethnicity to me every day. (take a guess)
out of the gate 'north american indian' was about 75%; 'indian' or some specific tribal affiliation was the rest. i never got any of the pc crap terms.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779273)
|
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:05 PM Author: sable anal state elastic band
if this isn't shtick, you either need to:
1. start taking supplemental testosterone
2. commit suicide
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34775889) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:32 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
Can you imagine naming an expansion team the Redskins?
I understand the natural conservative impulse to preserve tradition. It's fundamental. But we all live with the reality that culture is progressive and things change. We know what we did to those people and there is no need or inherent value in labeling a prominent football team with something directly tied to genocide and misery perpetrated by our marauding ancestors.
Stating that 'BUT ITS THEIR OWN TERM GUIS!' ignores so much about history and culture that I don't care to figure out where to start. You know it, too.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776054) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:44 PM Author: startling aromatic hall
let's assume Natives actually don't mind the name, as the polling indicates
Let's assume that they view it as making their continued presence in the US apparent
You'd still demand it be removed?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776138) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:51 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
Are you actually asking me to assume that it will somehow lower the status of First Nations people if we change the name?
I'm all for hypos but when we're talking about a concrete issue, magical realism scenarios where the Indians all just fade into history if we stop using 'Redskins' doesn't really offer any insight.
I address the polling stuff lower in the thread.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776177) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 6:27 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
The same poll everyone is alluding to but not citing indicates this is the case. You guys are perfectly willing to defer to united statistics when arguing your point but completely deny the validity of the same statistics in the same stroke.
"What's fucked up and degrading is that liberal whites believe that any human being is weak enough to be fucked up or degraded by a historical anachronism that wasn't even meant with offense. That's simply an embarrassing and fucked up view."
OK, then no issue with the 'Washington Spearchuckers?' I mean, hey, it even celebrates their proud substance hunting tradition, athleticism, and cultural virility!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776462) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 6:35 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
You're right man, you got me, they don't actually say it's fucked up and degrading. Good job.
I linked the wikipedia page discussing multiple polls farther down in the thread.
If you are going to argue with me that there is no realistic issue with calling a sports franchise the 'Spearchuckers' then you'll have to forgive me if I direct my attention to the people who are trafficking in reality to some degree.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776519) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 6:55 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
Let me teach you an editing trick, and this is from a notoriously longwinded writer.
"I defer to the polls and that is the entirety of my reasoning that I am willing to admit to. I think it's gay that you're being congenial to Charles."
See how that conveys the exact same information?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776724) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 8:29 PM Author: Motley Pale School
"Don't take the easy route of mistaking histrionic social meeting bleating and internet neckbeard persecution of academia for some kind of nascent paradigm shift."
Why shouldn't I? There has clearly been one. Even a basic glance at social history makes it obvious that people now (or at least a culturally influential subgroup) are far more sensitive regarding mascots, statues, and just about anything that has some ethnic aspect to it. "Cultural appropriation" literally didn't exist as a concept until the 1980s, but now it's an obsession. Just listen to yourself in this thread, where you admit you can't even accept utterly neutral names like Braves or Chiefs. You basically are uncomfortable with American Indians being cultural entities. I think that's actively bad.
"Elsewhere you argue that coveting our indigenous people like some kind of glorified pet is a proud and valuable tradition"
That's your view, not mine. I just don't see mascotification as inherently demeaning, even when it involves caricatures. Mascots are affectionate and often an expression of local pride, and I think the vast majority of people feel that way.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34777461) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:13 AM Author: spectacular roast beef
If you call your team the Washington Niggers, then no amount of local pride and affection makes it acceptable. Your personal take on whether or not the name somehow celebrates Native Americans (it really doesn't and nobody asked us to) does not attenuate the shitty nature of it.
The first part of your post is more of the same. 1. Fear mongering about the shitlib thought police turning us into Sweden, and 2. Most people who disagree with using 'Redskins' hold similar positions on the Braves and Indians. I have no discomfort with indigenous people as participants in our culture. That's purely you making an attack on me and suggesting my position is driven by some kind of latent weirdness over indigenous people.
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/533f0de569bedd345a163dec/an-intense-photo-of-a-native-american-confronting-a-cleveland-indians-fan-in-red-face.jpg
Shitlibs got a lot of mileage out of the picture. It captures some of the issue. Making them our mascots encourages that guy to paint his face red and many indigenous descendants find that degrading. Anyone can understand that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778906) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:25 AM Author: Motley Pale School
If the n-word were a historically neutral term created by blacks that simply was decreed to be offensive for no reason except general ignorance, then the Washington N*****s would be a totally fine name. It's not any of those things and you know it.
"I have no discomfort with indigenous people as participants in our culture."
Bullshit. You clearly do and you've shown it repeatedly. Maybe you don't realize it or don't accept it, but it's still the case. If you can't handle Tonto, a literal heroic Indian character, then you're not comfortable with Indians as equal participants in cultural life. They're just some victim class to you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778967) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 4:55 PM Author: bull headed business firm
the terms "pirates" and "raiders" remind me of the disgusting perception of my people among ignorant americans. they are offensive caricatures.
you can't judge me otherwise because you have not had my lived experience. don't call my feelings "silly."
one person offended should be enough to force them to change.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34775814) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:56 PM Author: ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad
nobody is saying that there's "no moral dimension" to any of this. but it's not helpful to run around saying "this is offensive, we should get rid of it" when a) the standards of what is "offensive" are ambiguous and b) when you are not setting some clear empirical standard as to what passes and what does not, whether based on some measure of attitudes among the supposedly harmed people or something else. you've somewhat addressed b) by specifying ethnic slurs but most libs have not, and they find names like "braves" and "chiefs" just as offensive, which opens up a different and more sweeping debate (though even by your standard the case of "indians" is ambiguous).
it's not just a question of "business/profits versus morals." dan snyder isn't the only one fighting to keep the name. it's quite clear that most redskins fans and nfl fans would prefer to keep it too. these people have no financial skin in the game on this, they are just people who have a personal emotional investment in a shared institution.
it's reasonable to argue that, just as a matter of taste, we should find a "slur-like" mascot objectionable even if less than 10% of natives actually give a shit (though you seem to be basing your argument in part on the quantity of people offended, and it doesn't seem like many natives really do care). but the institution has a great deal of social value and you're ignoring that part of the issue, as though changing the mascot would be a pretty simple change and that it's just a matter of dan snyder being willing to take whatever financial hit he might take.
the mascot wasn't designed to offend people when it was introduced and it's since evolved to become an institution which is greater than the dictionary meaning of the word, and something which people care about. this isn't as simple as asking ownership to take a hit for moral reasons.
and again, most libs are making a broader argument which doesn’t hinge on the status of a word as a “slur” anyways. the argument as you’ve constructed it isn’t exactly the same as most of the popular argument for changing these names.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776221) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 6:23 PM Author: ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad
i can at least appreciate the argument against ‘redskins’ and chief wahoo but a) again, most libs almost completely ignore the aspect of sports teams as social institutions, as though it was just a matter of business / profits vs. morals, and b) when you start arguing against names like “braves” and “chiefs” then charles’ point below is right. names like “illini” and “seminoles" and “utes” are great ways by which to honor local history and the culture of these people, and names like “braves” and “chiefs” and “warriors” are all quite respectful and laudatory. i actually think it would have been a great honor and sign of respect for local history for the okc thunder to have named themselves after a local tribe rather than give themselves a shitty generic name like “thunder.”
the name “fighting irish,” which grew out of the caricature of the belligerent irish drunk, is actually much more offensive in nature, and “celtics" is also a somewhat offputting and purely “ethnic” name without any laudatory aspect, much like “redskins.” but nobody argues against these.
i think it’s very silly to undermine historical american institutions about which people care, and which really aren’t disrespectful (many of them explicitly laudatory), and which weren’t born out of disrespect, for the sake of popular moral crusades which don’t seem to have a strict and objective set of standards, just a lot of emotions for ethnic minorities / “people of color.” maybe that’s not why you’re arguing against these names but then i don’t think you have a good argument at all against names like “chiefs” and “braves” and “seminoles” – especially the latter, which isn’t even a caricature.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776441) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:11 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
Congratulations on being the first person to say "hey it doesn't even often 'em all!" You're in good company with the 300 lbs. guy with mustard in his beard being the smartest guy at that end of the bar.
You're also aligning with a psychopathic and mentally ill murderer with little sign of self-awareness, but XO Ted references are always appreciated.
The ulterior motives is typically conservative paranoid thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34775928)
|
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:43 PM Author: Motley Pale School
No, I actually have no patience for this. Nobody has a problem with caricatures of European cultures (even historically marginalized ones), and they're mostly okay with select other places like Japan too. At heart, the issue here is that YOU view Indians as some inferior group, so any remotely non-serious portrayal of them or their history is an offensive caricature that must be removed.
America mistreated the Indians, but guess what? Even 100 years ago this was widely regarded as a BAD THING. Using Indian imagery wasn't some kind of ridicule, it was a way of actually celebrating their heritage (which was uniquely American) and incorporating them into the cultural framework. This involved plenty of caricaturing and simplification, because that's what happens when a group is actually part of cultural discourse. To Americans in the first half of the 1900s, Indians were actually complex, interesting people: Dangerous warriors, unique cultures, both allies and enemies, and often sympathetic victims. People like you want to sterilize them into a morality play that nobody can ever portray or discuss except in the most serious light. And if you can't joke about or caricature Indians, they're culturally dead. Compare modern America to 80 years ago and American Indians have FAR less of a cultural presence, because we've decided that simply acknowledging their existence is, in most cases, too offensive.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776129) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 6:14 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
"Nobody has a problem with caricatures of European cultures (even historically marginalized ones)"
Very silly. Context matters. The fact that any pro 'Redskins' argument has to scramble for a twisted explanation about how they sort of just passively accept it is very telling. And you can't really apply it to any other ethnic group and yet you're crying about 'European cultures' like this is all hinged on some broad and reasonable principle.
"YOU view Indians as some inferior group"
Not at all and nothing I have said should lead you to assume this. This is a borderline generic response to anyone who points a finger at racist attitudes. There are multiple other instances in this thread where you rail against the perceived paternalism and superiority of shitlibs rather than the argument I'm waging.
"non-serious portrayal of them or their history is an offensive caricature that must be removed."
Non-serious is BS minimizing of the issue. Seriousness doesn't matter. A sambo caricature is just as offensive as saying nigger and if you're honestly debating that then you should examine what is motivating you. I guarantee it's not a profound belief that acknowledging the dignity and equality of all ethnic groups is a clear benefit to civilization.
"Even 100 years ago this was widely regarded as a BAD THING. Using Indian imagery wasn't some kind of ridicule, it was a way of actually celebrating their heritage (which was uniquely American) and incorporating them into the cultural framework."
100 years ago you could put a sign in your window that said 'NO DOGS OR INDIANS WELCOME.' And people did it, everywhere. Society was openly hostile to First Nations people, and at we have become experts at burying this legacy with an 'unserious' treatment of them in modernity. You seem to be celebrating this uncomfortable compromise. But you're sadly in lunatic territory if you're going to point toward history as some great example of how we ought to regard indigenous people. I know from your interests and politics that you're prone to making this sort of argument, but stop and think about how you're going about this.
This is like the Stockholm syndrome Larry Kramer shit you see in the gay community where you have brain-damaged old gays suggesting that it's tragedy that 'queer culture' has been opened up to the masses by the sanitized Modern Family regard for gay people.
You're celebrating a potentially not accurate and fully condescending fetishism of tribal whoop whoop Indians as some sort of important cultural legacy that we're keeping alive with the 'Redskins.' That's shit, brother, and I would love to see you openly espouse this idea to a First Nations person who takes well informed pride in their ethnic identity and history.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776389) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 11:22 PM Author: Motley Pale School
Are you in Canada? First Nations isn't a term used in the US, so if you're American it seems like a really weird affectation, especially when you've been attempting to claim there is no overzealous PC movement.
That said:
1. How do we make light of their history or culture, let alone all the time? And no, I don't think a team name is enough to prove that.
2. What is actually wrong with making light of culture? Once again, you seem to be treating Indians as some sad morality play and not actual cultures with history and distinctive traits and imagery. Nobody minds making light of the Irish, or the Japanese, or the Egyptians, or the Russians. And no, I don't think there's a difference here, except that you've decided Indians are special and sacred.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778608) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 11:58 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
I mostly used it because I know it has a smug shitlib ring to it and I wanted people to engage the thread. I picked it up reading about Inuit bros. Same book inspired this thread:
http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3574115&mc=98&forum_id=2
We constantly belittle indigenous culture. Chief Wahoo is tolerated. Tonto. A crying Indian in a head dress because somebody littered. There are many books about only this topic and I suspect you're playing dumb too some extent when you act mystified at the suggestion that Indians have been portrayed inaccurately in ways that rage from silly to outright negative.
Most of our depictions of them are crude, simplistic, cartoonish. You couldn't get away with the same thing with other dark skinned ethnic groups. The closest example is Apu from the Simpsons and the other gentle lampooning of model minorities, and they correctly get pissed off about it. If we agree to everything you're stating, then Redskins is no different than Fighting Irish. You know there is a difference and I don't have to spell it out for you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778843) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:19 AM Author: Motley Pale School
Those are pretty weak examples of belittling. Chief Wahoo is literally just a cartoon logo. I guess is has exaggerated red skin...but how is that hateful? Cartoons have exaggerated features. You just sound terrified of anything that involves skin color, as if it's talismanic or something. Tonto is a heroic character who in some iterations speaks bad English (like you might expect a foreigner to). The crying Indian was literally in a position of moral superiority in that ad. That hardly seems like some vast record of belittling and humiliation.
Compare with, say, Family Guy's take on the Irish:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lJbpVmyKgo
I'd call that WAY more belittling than anything you listed.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778936) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 1:09 AM Author: Motley Pale School
Hardly. The page is mostly:
1. Simply repeating that a caricature is obviously evil (I've been asking you to explain why this is),
2. Listing orgs denouncing it as racist, and
3. Making comparisons to Little Black Sambo, which is another case of something being deemed racist simply because of its color and pretty much nothing else.
The only part that resonates a bit is the complaint that including a feather is blasphemous, but this actually generalizes specific tribal norms to all Indians without justification.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779232) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 1:37 AM Author: spectacular roast beef
That is fair.
On XO I usually avoid subthreads where the disagreement leads to some MAF poster DEMANDING that someone explain every single presumption and opinion they hold in painstaking detail.
It happens constantly on XO and it's an absurdly aspie means of arguing that never creates a coherent discussion. The DEMANDS for EXPLANATION of something that really doesn't require one started early ITT so I deliberately withheld to some degree. For some reason, angry bored guys debating on the internet feel they're entitled to whatever explanation they DEMAND and they substitute this for making their own statements and arguments. It's a crap interrogation style that I have weakly utilized as well, so I know how dumb it is. It's much easier to have your 'opponent' write a few hundred words and then pick at it with autism-spectrum obsessiveness over some imaginary cogency standard for opinions.
But anyway, there was a lot of hand waiving about the polls earlier. I also declined to really get into that but I did say that the polling doesn't matter to me that much. That is because I think the opinions of a vocal and informed minority of indigenous descendants is sufficient for not using 'Redskins.' And the leadership of many tribal organizations and advocacy groups are against it. They find it offensive, demeaning, regressive, and they don't want it. That's a good enough reason on its face. If it makes a significant number of the people it claims to depict feel unhappy, then fuck it, why are we protecting it?
The answer to that, of course, was FUCK LIBS and SLIPPERY SLOPE or YOU HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS and of course EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Some of the pushback against changing the name is also a racist cypher from people who privately delight in the last few bastions of openly implicating race in society. Native Americans have been getting the worst of that bullshit for a while now. Depriving anyone of that outlet is worthy because it comes at the cost of dignity.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779318) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 3:20 AM Author: ivory galvanic step-uncle's house police squad
ok but saying that “there’s a difference between ‘fighting irish’ and ‘redskins’ and i don’t have to spell it out for you” is begging the question to some extent. that difference a major factor in this debate and you didn’t tell us whether the difference is in the ridiculousness of the caricature or the offense which people take to them, or something else. i gather that you’re arguing for some combination thereof but when i read this kind of argumentation it just makes me doubt the strength of your reasoning and whether we can have a debate in good faith. that's all.
as for “If it makes a significant number of the people it claims to depict feel unhappy, then fuck it, why are we protecting it?” i'll revert to what i said before, it’s an institution about which tens of millions of people care (really hundreds of millions since even fans of other teams have strong feelings about this) and which has been a non-negligible part of american culture for the better part of a century. it’s not just a case of dan snyder wanting to avoid the one-time restructuring cost and it’s not a case of hundreds of millions of closet racists holding onto one last bastion of old-school racism. and again the ‘redskins’ institution has evolved beyond the dictionary meaning of the word, and pretty much any american with any meaningful exposure to nfl football has an intuitive understanding of this, indians included. that's not to ignore claims that some find ‘redskins’ demeaning, but if it were as simple as “it hurts one group of people and does nothing to another group of people, so getting rid of it would be pareto efficient excepting dan snyder,” then there wouldn’t be a heated debate around the issue. there’s more than one side with something at stake.
from there we can hand-wring over how much we should weigh the claims of the offended, our distaste of the name ‘redskins’, etc. against the social value of the institution, but there’s no clean solution either way, even if you think that indians are clearly suffering more harm. that's why i brought up confederate street names / statues issue below. my general stance is that i can get why a black person would be upset about living near a statue of john calhoun, but a) the shared history and institutions of those areas are not worthless to locals, and b) it’s not my place to tell mobile, alabama how much those shared institutions are worth, or whether it can or cannot have certain statues. so if the local councils agree to keep the statues that’s up to them, and if people feel so strongly that they can’t put up with it then they can relocate to a region with a different history and culture, or which treats its legacy differently. it sucks for some people but most understand that, for those who want to keep it, it’s more about preserving local history than about preserving racism as such as a living force, b/c the historical institution and its importance to people today isn’t the same as what some of that stuff meant in 1850. keeping a confederate statue isn’t akin to preserving slavery or jim crow laws.
there's no immediately similar democratic process for making decisions over mascots but assuming that team owners are looking to maximize profits the decision still falls back on the sentiments of consumers of the nfl. and they’ll obviously overwhelmingly favor keeping the name b/c the fraction of nfl consumers who oppose is very small. but again, most football fans, indians included, understand that the symbol is a historical artifact that means something to people not as a racist symbol but as its own institution, and that that’s why people want to keep it, not out of a desire to preserve racism, because they don’t even wield it as a racist object to begin with – much like confederate street names today. it sucks for indians who don’t like it and who are conscious enough about nfl football to be annoyed by it but if they really don’t like it then they don’t have to watch. it would be a different story if this was a new team with no history adopting the name ‘redskins’ but if it were then the popular outcry, unchecked by a sense of historical context and social value, would be too overwhelming for it to last.
maybe you say that dan snyder is still god in this situation so it’s on him to weigh the racial offense to indians over the social value to other fans for moral reasons. but again it’s not an easy one-sided decision, and people understand the institution in historical context.
and again the scale would tip even further away from the opposition for names like “braves” which aren’t intrinsically offensive outside of the fact that they are caricatures, and even further for names like “seminoles" which many non-indians and indians see as a sign of respect.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779547) |
Date: November 26th, 2017 5:27 PM Author: naked avocado round eye
snyder would have PWNED libs if he just changed the name to "washington rednecks" & simultaneously made their theme song "are u ready 4 some football" by hank jr (which at the time had been banned by libs).
pros:
-white rednecks/working class would have LOVED it
-chill black DC sports fans wouldn't have cared (& also didn't care about the redskins name")
-american indians would have continued to not care about the issue
-libs would have been ENRAGED (they're margininalizing non-white viewers!!!)
cons:
??
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776022) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 9:13 PM Author: Motley Pale School
Concern trolling aside, I get irate about this because it's so pigheaded. It doesn't matter if Indians are actually offended. It doesn't matter whether the term was a slur when it was coined (it wasn't). It doesn't matter whether it was meant as a slur when the team was created (it wasn't). And it doesn't matter whether the term is actually used as a slur now (have you ever seen an actual Indian called a redskin, negatively or otherwise? I have not). You've brushed aside all those questions as largely unimportant, and still insist the name must go, because you simply feel it's disrespectful. I'm entirely serious when I say that you seem to simply be uncomfortable with Indians having any casual presence in American culture. I find that really sad. The ability to have your heritage used for sport, or humor, or symbolism, or whatever, has bizarrely become a variant of white privilege, all because people insist on finding offense in everything.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34777724) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 11:10 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
It's not white privilege to say that the name and logo reduce First Nations people to caricature. This is offensive to some of them and makes their culture and history appear cartoonish.
I have probably spent more time around 'Indians' than most people posting in this thread. I have no problem with their presence in culture. Quite the opposite.
The rest of your post cuts toward the same SHITLIBS WRECK EVERYTHING WITH THEIR POISON line that you have been attempting to inject into the debate.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778526) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 11:39 PM Author: Motley Pale School
"It's not white privilege to say that the name and logo reduce First Nations people to caricature. This is offensive to some of them and makes their culture and history appear cartoonish."
So? Being caricatured is a part of having a real culture. Other cultures are caricatured all the time. The only problem is overly hurtful or hateful caricatures. You've just decided that for Indians almost any public portrayal is hurtful; in essence they're a special class of untouchables, and culturally dead as a result.
"I have probably spent more time around 'Indians' than most people posting in this thread. I have no problem with their presence in culture. Quite the opposite."
Bullshit. If you think a team being called the "Chiefs" is offensive, then you're simply uncomfortable with Indians having a cultural presence, at least one that isn't strictly controlled. And the end result of strict control is that they'll simply be absent, because they'll be sterile and boring. Indians are reduced to a museum piece.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778734) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:22 AM Author: spectacular roast beef
You seem deliberate in your conflation of mere portrayal and caricature. The Redskins, the Braves, The Indians, all caricature that has very little to do with actual indigenous culture. It reduces a diverse and complex group of ancient cultures to our white societal rendering of all indigenous people as some monolithic 'Red Man' concept.
You're repeating yourself ad nauseam with the accusations about me being some conflicted racist or whatever you're alluding to. I have tried to refrain from letting this do the arguing for me, but I'll draw your attention to it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_Redskins_name_change_advocates
Plenty of lucid, well informed stakeholders disagree with your notion that this is all a bunch of whiny witch hunting by shitlibs who just don't understand that 'Redskins' is somehow all about affection and celebration.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778950) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:36 AM Author: Motley Pale School
"You seem deliberate in your conflation of mere portrayal and caricature. The Redskins, the Braves, The Indians, all caricature that has very little to do with actual indigenous culture. It reduces a diverse and complex group of ancient cultures to our white societal rendering of all indigenous people as some monolithic 'Red Man' concept."
You know what else does that? Literally any team called the Knights. We have a stock image of knights that is simplified, caricatured, and monolithic which totally ignores huge variations between cultures. And it doesn't matter. There are plenty of other examples. Modern portrayals of Vikings are grossly inaccurate much of the time. Same goes for samurai, or Mongols, or Italians, or whatever. There's nothing wrong with simplified portrayals of things, as long as they aren't hateful.
I haven't been calling you a racist, if that's how you've been taking it. I've simply been pointing out the nature of your complaints. You are not demanding that Indians be treated the same as other groups (I.e. fairly). You're demanding they be treated DIFFERENTLY from other groups, and this demand, to me, seems rooted in an infantilization of Indians as a group.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779023) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 1:22 AM Author: spectacular roast beef
Again, I understand the point you are making but this is junior high shit. Would you feel comfortable making this argument to an intelligent person IRL?
"Well Bob, I'm just dumbfounded that someone would suggest that Native Americans may be offended by the Redskins. Nobody ever asks how the nobles of Europe feel about how their ancestors are just reduced to silly images of plate armor and swords!"
It seems that you deny that indigenous people could or should be offended by any depiction. Is there any depiction of Native Americans you do think present racist notions or characters them in a negative light?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779274) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 7:01 PM Author: Soul-stirring glassy becky
My point is that your stance on this issue is completely ridicolous. Why not address the astronomical suicide rates first?
In convinced you're never even known a Native American in your life. I'd be happy to take you to a reservation in North Dakota or tell you a story of one of my ex-co-workers talking one down from a bridge. Native Americans don't give a shit about this issue for a reason.
You really come off as an out-of-touch limousine lib ITT.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776766) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 7:03 PM Author: vigorous gold antidepressant drug
The profound cultural detriments they face are almost exclusively self-inflicted.
Would any of them really take the following deal: Give up antibiotics, food certainty, climate control in exchange for being able to run free across the forests.
If you want to create some sort of collectivized report card for the impact of whites on them i'd say its an A
If you and other gay shitlibs really cared about these people you would address the actual issues facing them. Drug/Alchy abuse, broken homes, domestic violence, etc. But no, you don't actually give a shit about them. You could literally have an aboriginal dood next door suffering from alcoholism and instead of trying to help him you would be furiously typing away at XO poasters about how we need to change a the name of a team because it could hurt peoples' feelings. Your concern is phony.
If you want to really "help" people like you and your shitlib ilk like to claim you desire, then focus first on your immediate circle of influence. Not grandstanding about national debates. But the former is a lot harder and requires mastery of your own self and involves getting your hands dirty and doing hard work and we can't have that now can we
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34776777) |
|
Date: November 26th, 2017 10:00 PM Author: spectacular roast beef
I disagree and it's not as if I'm the only person to take this position. I tried to reasonably respond to everyone, even the posters who didn't express much more than FUCK SHITLIBS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington_Redskins_name_change_advocates
I agree with the SCOTUS decision, by the way. And I think reasonable people can fall on either side of the line but ultimately there aren't any many strong arguments against rejecting the name. People like Mike Holmgren aren't exactly genderqueer shitlib activists when they share this position.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778017) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:04 AM Author: spectacular roast beef
That was a joke brother, calm down. You're on the internet and nobody. This is a safe space.
Do you not see any difference between the two? One is an old-fashioned term selected by people advocating for themselves that has since come to be viewed negatively. They have their reasons for not changing it but many people disagree. Google it.
The Redskins are a pro sports team with no actual affiliation or connection with any indigenous cultures. They're taking a broadly stylized depiction of that culture and name that some members of that culture and ethnic group find troubling. The team uses the depiction and name to produce profits through their brand. It's not the same.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778875) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:21 AM Author: laughsome jade mad-dog skullcap
"One is an old-fashioned term selected by people advocating for themselves that has since come to be viewed negatively."
Redskin is also an old-fashioned term that wasn't considered offensive at the time but has since come to be viewed negatively. What does it matter who picked it? Some black leaders picked it, therefore we should assume most blacks are okay with it? Your whole argument ITT is that most members of a group being okay with it (c.f. the "90% of natives" polls) is not good enough.
Why does having an affiliation with that culture make a difference? Suppose Dan Snyder and every single Redskins player and employee were all Native Americans themselves. All your arguments would apply just as forcefully: "It's wrong to name a team after an archaic ethnic term, a sizable number of the group doesn't like it, etc." Unless you think Snyder et al. being Native would suddenly reduce the percentage of Natives offended by it from 10% down to whatever completely arbitrary percentage that would mean it's no longer necessary to change the name?
What percentage of black people being offended by the name "NAACP" would cause you to take the same stance on the NAACP changing its name as you do for the Redskins?
"The team uses the depiction and name to produce profits through their brand. It's not the same."
So what? What, like ethnic groups have a collectively held copyright on stuff associated with their culture and anyone profiting off that stuff owes them royalties, or something?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778947) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:46 AM Author: spectacular roast beef
I think the masses side against me. But I also didn't think I needed to make out the case that it's different than other mascots and names, or that it has a recognized offensive dimension.
It was extremely angry and IR8 posters who demanded that I somehow lay out the entire argument for both sides rather than state their opinions.
It's offensive because it portrays a diverse group of cultures with rich individual histories as a cartoonish simplification of their skin color that was created by white people and this is in the context of cultural genocide perpetrated by the same wealthy white interests that profit form the team and control the NFL. Agree with it or not, that captures most of the arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy
A lot of ink has been spilled over this topic but there are posters in here who seem to regard the issue as some kind of shitlib blogger fantasy rather than a legitimate public debate. And yes I just teed up a great WaPo joke for somebody.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34779079) |
Date: November 27th, 2017 12:02 AM Author: Black codepig university
this issue seems stupid to be sure. but its just the name of a fucking football team. if it genuinely causes some group of people distress, just fucking change the name. who gives a fuck?
Both sides can make me want to punch them. But I certainly want to punch the anti-name change people more because they don't even have a fig leaf of a reasonable ground to stand on.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3809491&forum_id=2#34778864) |
|
|