gritzRgreat

Rolling R-word's (Trademark Pending) updates..

Recommended Posts

Can't believe there are actually people out there arguing against changing the name. The complete lack of empathy some of these people exhibit reminds me of the definition of a sociopath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe there are actually people out there arguing against changing the name. The complete lack of empathy some of these people exhibit reminds me of the definition of a sociopath.

I find the hypocrisy behind those supporting the name change sociopathic and showing a complete lack of empathy. They are just pushing an agenda to fit their needs. Why selectively pick their targets? Why are the Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks, Fighting Illini, and Seminoles not offensive when the Red skin comes from a pigment used to ward off bugs? But then again they are so focused with their anger that they cannot see the bigger picture or their own hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the hypocrisy behind those supporting the name change sociopathic and showing a complete lack of empathy. They are just pushing an agenda to fit their needs. Why selectively pick their targets? Why are the Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks, Fighting Illini, and Seminoles not offensive when the Red skin comes from a pigment used to ward off bugs? But then again they are so focused with their anger that they cannot see the bigger picture or their own hypocrisy.

Look up the terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And 81 years ago, George Preston Marshall renamed the Boston Braves the Boston Redskins. The name was brilliant because it not only honored Native American HC Lone Star Dietz(debatable whether or not he was actually Native American) and the Native American players on the team, but it also allowed the team to keep the Native American theme they used under the Braves moniker.

I think it's incredibly poorly thought out to say that because white people killed Native Americans and forced them to move, hundreds of years ago, a sports team today can't call themselves a name that's meant as an honor to those Native Americans.

It's also quite poor how you're somehow tying the benign name of a football team to genocide, as SBorBust said.

Yes, likely the name will change. But that doesn't mean you and others on the other side of this "issue" are right.

Here is your hero :roll: The biiggest racist in NFL history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall

This is a worng and right issue, you are just on the wrong side.

You will lose this year, or next year, or in 5 years.

Deal with it.

My timeline was to show the evolution of this country.

Feel free to drag your knuckles for a few more months or years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an issue of a name suddenly becoming offensive.

It is an issue of the corruption and attitudes that allowed it to stay falling apart 1 by 1.

The country did not vote on the name in 1998 or 2010, a few misguided politicians granted a favor to a rich guy who could give them good tickets,

Another thing:

The DC Football club does not go away.

Their 3 Lombardi Trophies are still a part of their history.

This should be little more than the Oilers becoming the Titans, just involuntary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop for a second.

Think about the number of times in your life that you've heard one person call another a "Redskin" in order to demean or otherwise insult them.

(This doesn't count football related jokes).

But, if people want to write out Native Americans from society in the interest of political correctness I guess there is nothing I can do. (Just know that these same people had no problem with the name 2 years ago and it took 6 months of arguing before they could come up with the "evolving language" defense.)

How much time have you spent around Native Americans or on a reservation? Not likely you are going to hear slurs like that tossed around in cities, it just isn't a hotbed for racism against Native Americans. But spend time in northern Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah and you'll see it a lot in area close to reservations.

And who are you to say who is or who isn't offended by the term Redskin and for how long? Just because this controversy hasn't been on your radar before two years ago doesn't mean others haven't been following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is ironic that they only pursue the Redskins and not the other teams with Indian names. It is the side of the argument that they never address.

No, it's not ironic. The fact that you cannot understand the difference between 'Chiefs', 'Seminoles' or 'Braves' and 'Redskins' just shows how out of touch with reality that you have become. A title of honor (Chief and Brave) or a tribe name (Seminole) are not racial slurs. It's the same difference between an African tribe name (Zulu, Ondonga, Ait Toureg) and a slur (porch******, mud *****, ni***r). Why you 'Redskin' defenders do not understand this is quite a mystery. Y'all either just very dedicated internet trolls because your lives are absolutely miserable or all y'all a bunch of psychopaths and truly have zero empathy and thus cannot comprehend how racial slurs affect people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest issues I have with those on the pro-change side is how self-righteous some of them are. They act like "Redskins" is so blatantly and obviously racist, and then they act so condescending towards those against the name change for not seeing things the way they do. When in reality, the issue is not so black and white, as I said earlier. I see more of this kind of attitude from those for the name change than those against it.

That can be said for both sides of every argument in the history of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the hypocrisy behind those supporting the name change sociopathic and showing a complete lack of empathy. They are just pushing an agenda to fit their needs. Why selectively pick their targets? Why are the Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks, Fighting Illini, and Seminoles not offensive when the Red skin comes from a pigment used to ward off bugs? But then again they are so focused with their anger that they cannot see the bigger picture or their own hypocrisy.

Which part of "The R-words are the first step" didn't you understand.

Everything has a starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is your hero :roll: The biiggest racist in NFL history.

http://en.wikipedia....reston_Marshall

This is a worng and right issue, you are just on the wrong side.

You will lose this year, or next year, or in 5 years.

Deal with it.

My timeline was to show the evolution of this country.

Feel free to drag your knuckles for a few more months or years.

It's quite apparent that George Preston Marshall was racist toward blacks, but if he was racist toward Native Americans, why did he have Native American players? Why did he have a Native American HC? Why did he associate his team, and thus his brand, with the people he supposedly hated so much? Using the argument that Marshall was racist, and thus "Redskins" is racist, doesn't work.

If the evolution of this country involves people spending vast amounts of time trying to eradicate anything and everything that offends them, even if others of their ethnicity or other classification aren't offended... then so be it. I, meantime, will try to live a reasonable, unoffended, unassuming lifestyle.

No, it's not ironic. The fact that you cannot understand the difference between 'Chiefs', 'Seminoles' or 'Braves' and 'Redskins' just shows how out of touch with reality that you have become. A title of honor (Chief and Brave) or a tribe name (Seminole) are not racial slurs. It's the same difference between an African tribe name (Zulu, Ondonga, Ait Toureg) and a slur (porch******, mud *****, ni***r). Why you 'Redskin' defenders do not understand this is quite a mystery. Y'all either just very dedicated internet trolls because your lives are absolutely miserable or all y'all a bunch of psychopaths and truly have zero empathy and thus cannot comprehend how racial slurs affect people.

Why are you so sure it's a slur? Show me concrete, undebatable proof.

I'm sure you hate the Redskins, but that doesn't mean you automatically have to be against the name. I'd guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you haven't researched the name very much, if at all. If you have and you're still so sure it's wrong, well, that's your privelege.

And both of those options you gave me as to what kind of person I am are incorrect. Maybe give me a few more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite apparent that George Preston Marshall was racist toward blacks, but if he was racist toward Native Americans, why did he have Native American players? Why did he have a Native American HC? Why did he associate his team, and thus his brand, with the people he supposedly hated so much? Using the argument that Marshall was racist, and thus "Redskins" is racist, doesn't work.

If the evolution of this country involves people spending vast amounts of time trying to eradicate anything and everything that offends them, even if others of their ethnicity or other classification aren't offended... then so be it. I, meantime, will try to live a reasonable, unoffended, unassuming lifestyle.

Why are you so sure it's a slur? Show me concrete, undebatable proof.

I'm sure you hate the Redskins, but that doesn't mean you automatically have to be against the name. I'd guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you haven't researched the name very much, if at all. If you have and you're still so sure it's wrong, well, that's your privelege.

And both of those options you gave me as to what kind of person I am are incorrect. Maybe give me a few more?

Quite possibly the dumbest argument against changing the name I've heard so far that hasn't actually been racist or bigoted. So, congratulations, I guess.

Considering George Preston Marshall's credentials as a person with no moral compass, I can't believe that you are actually using him as a shield for your already baseless argument. That's like saying the racist rancher in Nevada who said blacks were better off as slaves still has credibility on the subject of racism... as long as he isn't talking about blacks.

Are you this dense? Countless Native Americans (you know, those people who would actually have a clue what's racist in the Native American culture) have been fighting the name for years yet you hide behind a known racists's judgement? Hmm... agenda much?

I have some advice for you. Maybe you should just quit this debate now. The more you post on the subject the more chance you have of slipping up and admitting that you really don't care if it's racist because it doesn't affect you personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not ironic. The fact that you cannot understand the difference between 'Chiefs', 'Seminoles' or 'Braves' and 'Redskins' just shows how out of touch with reality that you have become. A title of honor (Chief and Brave) or a tribe name (Seminole) are not racial slurs. It's the same difference between an African tribe name (Zulu, Ondonga, Ait Toureg) and a slur (porch******, mud *****, ni***r). Why you 'Redskin' defenders do not understand this is quite a mystery. Y'all either just very dedicated internet trolls because your lives are absolutely miserable or all y'all a bunch of psychopaths and truly have zero empathy and thus cannot comprehend how racial slurs affect people.

No, you are the one out of touch. Do you know what Redskin means? The name derived from a pigment the Indians used to but on their face to keep bugs away.

But continue your one sided ramblings. This is the same as the Fighting Sioux. It is all about creating a political wedge issue and money. Nothing more.

Spirit Lake Tribe Sues NCAA Read more athttp://indiancountry...sues-ncaa-60972

Statement by: Reed Soderstrom, an attorney for the Committee of Understanding & Respect, and Archie Fool Bear, individually and on behalf of the 1004+ Petitioners.

Today, the Spirit Lake Tribe of Indians, by and through its Committee of Understanding and Respect, and Archie Fool Bear, individually, and as Representative of more than 1004 Petitioners of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, filed a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in direct response to their attempt to take away and prevent the North Dakota Sioux Indians from giving their name forever to the University of North Dakota.

In 2009 the Spirit Lake tribe voted overwhelmingly to allow the University of North Dakota to continue using the name “Fighting Sioux.” In 1969, in a sacred & religious spiritual ceremony, the tribal leaders of the Standing Rock tribe granted perpetual use of the name “Fighting Sioux” to the University of North Dakota.

However, the NCAA has unilaterally decided that the name “Fighting Sioux” is derogatory to the very people who feel honored by the name—the North Dakota Sioux tribes. The NCAA has declared, without input from the Dakota Sioux, that UND will be prevented from hosting any post-season sporting events; and is encouraging other universities to boycott UND if the University does not remove the name “Fighting Sioux” and the accompanying logo honoring the traditions and customs of the proud Dakota Sioux people. These actions are a violation of the religious and first amendment rights of the Dakota Sioux tribes, and show the NCAA believes it knows the interests of the North Dakota Sioux community better than Sioux people themselves.

Though the NCAA has decided “Fighting Sioux” is derogatory, the NCAA supports the University of Illinois’ use of the name “Fighting Illini,” and the use by Florida State University of the name “Seminoles” along with the Seminole mascot—someone dressed in Native American attire who rides into the FSU stadium on a horse and throws a flaming spear before every home football game. The NCAA claims these are not derogatory depictions because the Illini people and the Seminole people approve of the use of the name and mascot. Inexplicably, the NCAA fails to accept the tribal vote and the sacred religious ceremony as endorsements of the name “Fighting Sioux” by the North Dakota Sioux Nation. The NCAA’s actions violate Native American civil rights, equal protection rights, and religious rights.

Read more athttp://indiancountry...sues-ncaa-60972

So you don't see the hypocrisy in all of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite possibly the dumbest argument against changing the name I've heard so far that hasn't actually been racist or bigoted. So, congratulations, I guess.

Considering George Preston Marshall's credentials as a person with no moral compass, I can't believe that you are actually using him as a shield for your already baseless argument. That's like saying the racist rancher in Nevada who said blacks were better off as slaves still has credibility on the subject of racism... as long as he isn't talking about blacks.

Are you this dense? Countless Native Americans (you know, those people who would actually have a clue what's racist in the Native American culture) have been fighting the name for years yet you hide behind a known racists's judgement? Hmm... agenda much?

I have some advice for you. Maybe you should just quit this debate now. The more you post on the subject the more chance you have of slipping up and admitting that you really don't care if it's racist because it doesn't affect you personally.

Why are they not fighting the Blackhawks, Chiefs, Braves, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jason1978

I wasn't there when these people said those things, but I'd guess a lot of it is tongue-in-cheek, and it's hilarious.

If they were actually serious, most of it's still hilarious, but in a sad kind of way.

@Paco

One of the biggest issues I have with those on the pro-change side is how self-righteous some of them are. They act like "Redskins" is so blatantly and obviously racist, and then they act so condescending towards those against the name change for not seeing things the way they do. When in reality, the issue is not so black and white, as I said earlier. I see more of this kind of attitude from those for the name change than those against it.

Not saying you're this way, but just an observation in general.

Welcome to liberal politics in the US. Unfortunately, that is the way that the country has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is hilarious in the argument is how ignorant the pro-side is to reality. I am sure they never traveled outside of this country. If they did they would find that you can meet people that do not like people from the same race but like others from that race. They could not like people from a certain country while liking others. It does not make them racists against everyone but in your ideological rantings where you ignore information that is where you end up. Ignorant.

I worked in China and regularly ran into people that would not hire people from a certain area because their area was considered lazy but would hire people from a different area because they were considered hard working.

I worked a lot overseas and saw this on a regular basis.

It is not racism, it is cultural differences. Cultures view others differently. If you were to call it racism everyone in the world would be racists. Everyone.

Marshall treated blacks horrible but held Indians in high regard. That is a part of his makeup and he had reasons for that but to throw terms around to make your argument just makes you look ignorant and ill informed about the larger scope of the issue.

It does not excuse how poorly he treated blacks with respect to treating Indians but you have to separate the two.

The pro side arguments have yet to show how Marshall was racist towards Indians which is the case you make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite possibly the dumbest argument against changing the name I've heard so far that hasn't actually been racist or bigoted. So, congratulations, I guess.

Considering George Preston Marshall's credentials as a person with no moral compass, I can't believe that you are actually using him as a shield for your already baseless argument. That's like saying the racist rancher in Nevada who said blacks were better off as slaves still has credibility on the subject of racism... as long as he isn't talking about blacks.

Are you this dense? Countless Native Americans (you know, those people who would actually have a clue what's racist in the Native American culture) have been fighting the name for years yet you hide behind a known racists's judgement? Hmm... agenda much?

I have some advice for you. Maybe you should just quit this debate now. The more you post on the subject the more chance you have of slipping up and admitting that you really don't care if it's racist because it doesn't affect you personally.

Your 2nd paragraph example really isn't the same as what I as saying. Skippy was saying that because George Preston Marshall was racist toward blacks, he must have been racist toward Native Americans as well. I was merely saying that because he was racist toward blacks doesn't necessarily mean he was racist toward Native Americans as well, and I think my points about Marshall associating himself with these people he supposedly hated back me up on that.

Argue these facts:

1. A 2004 poll of Native Americans showed that 90% are not bothered by the name "Redskins."

2. A high school Arizona, which has a population that is 99% Native American, uses the team name "Redskins".

And... I'll ignore your well-meaning advice, for now.

The following post is from another board, and the OP expresses what I think so much better than I can.

I dont know how others really feel or why they may feel the way the do but Ive always tried to not let what others say about me or call me make much difference to me. When somebody has referred to me in some racially derogatory way Ive just let it roll off my back like water off a duck. A person has to make a conscious decision to do that. Why should I care what somebody else calls me? My self worth and esteem arent dependent upon some fool's opinion or words.

...

If this issue wasnt made into an issue, Im not so sure any Indians would really care all that much. Maybe some would, but who can know for sure. We live in a time where "getting offended" about something is all the rage. Then, even if someone isnt in the "offended" group its in vogue to climb on the bandwagon with the mock outrage and crusade against some great injustice in some empty attempt to feel as if one has contributed to some great reconciling of an injustice and convince oneself that they have actually done something of significance. Meanwhile they are never satisfied because the mock outrage and futile attempt at trying to feel better about oneself hasnt done anything to truly mask their real issues as an individual.

My real problem with all of this is that if all those who are so outraged by this tremendous injustice were really trying to make the world a better place for everyone there are about 2500 things of more importance they should be concerned with fixing before worrying about this one.

/smiles, drops mic, walks off stage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

WASHINGTON – The name of a certain pro football team in Washington, D.C., has inspired protests, hearings, editorials, lawsuits, letters from Congress, even a presidential nudge. Yet behind the headlines, it’s unclear how many Native Americans think “Redskins” is a racial slur.

Perhaps this uncertainty shouldn’t matter — because the word has an undeniably racist history, or because the team says it uses the word with respect, or because in a truly decent society, some would argue, what hurts a few should be avoided by all.

UPDATE: ‘Redskins’ Name Ruled Disparaging, Trademarks Cancelled

But the thoughts and beliefs of native people are the basis of the debate over changing the team name. And looking across the breadth of Native America — with 2 million Indians enrolled in 566 federally recognized tribes, plus another 3.2 million who tell the Census they are Indian — it’s difficult to tell how many are opposed to the name.

The controversy has peaked in the last few days. President Barack Obama said Saturday he would consider getting rid of the name if he owned the team, and the NFL took the unprecedented step Monday of promising to meet with the Oneida Indian Nation, which is waging a national ad campaign against the league.

Oneida Nation: Taxpayers Can’t Pay to Help Redskins Profit off of ‘Racial Slur’

What gets far less attention, though, is this:

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

All of which underscores the oft-overlooked diversity within Native America.

“Marginalized communities are too often treated monolithically,” said Carter Meland, a professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota.

“Stories on the mascot issue always end up exploring whether it is right or it is wrong, respectful or disrespectful,” said Meland, an Ojibwe Indian.

He believes Indian mascots are disrespectful, but said: “It would be interesting to get a sense of the diversity of opinion within a native community.”

Those communities vary widely.

Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation, grew up when Navajo children were forced into boarding schools to disconnect them from their culture. Some were punished for speaking their native language. Today, he sees environmental issues as the biggest threat to his people.

The high school football team in his district is the Red Mesa Redskins.

Redskins Fan Cried Over Trademark Ruling

“We just don’t think that (name) is an issue,” Yazzie said. “There are more important things like busing our kids to school, the water settlement, the land quality, the air that surrounds us. Those are issues we can take sides on.”

“Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”

Neither does Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux who lives on the Spirit Lake reservation in North Dakota. “It more or less shows that they approve of our history,” she said.

North Dakota was the scene of a similar controversy over the state university’s Fighting Sioux nickname. It was decisively scrapped in a 2012 statewide vote — after the Spirit Lake reservation voted in 2010 to keep it.

Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, “I would say I stand with him . we don’t want our history to be forgotten.”

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the “Redskins” trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions.

“Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.

Indian support for the name “is really a classic case of internalized oppression,” Harjo said. “People taking on what has been said about them, how they have been described, to such an extent that they don’t even notice.”

Harjo declines to estimate what percentage of native people oppose the name. But she notes that the many organizations supporting her lawsuit include the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.

“The ‘Redskins’ trademark is disparaging to Native Americans and perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype of Native Americans as ‘blood-thirsty savages,’ ‘noble warriors’ and an ethnic group ‘frozen in history,’” the National Congress said in a brief filed in the lawsuit.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says the term is “very offensive and should be avoided.” But like another infamous racial epithet, the N-word, it has been redefined by some native people as a term of familiarity or endearment, often in abbreviated form, according to Meland, the Indian professor.

“Of course, it is one thing for one ‘skin to call another ‘skin a ‘skin, but it has entirely different meaning when a non-Indian uses it,” Meland said in an email interview.

It was a white man who applied it to this particular football team: Owner George Preston Marshall chose the name in 1932 partly to honor the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was known as an Indian.

“The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in June to 10 members of Congress who challenged the name.

Marshall, however, had a reputation as a racist. He was the last NFL owner who refused to sign black players — the federal government forced him to integrate in 1962 by threatening to cancel the lease on his stadium. When he died in 1969, his will created a Redskins Foundation but stipulated that it never support “the principle of racial integration in any form.”

And Dietz, the namesake Redskin, may not have even been a real Indian. Dietz served jail time for charges that he falsely registered for the draft as an Indian in order to avoid service. According to an investigation by the Indian Country Today newspaper, he stole the identity of a missing Oglala Sioux man.

Now, 81 years into this jumbled identity tale, the saga seems to finally be coming to a head. The NFL’s tone has shifted over the last few months, from defiance to conciliation.

“If we are offending one person,” Goodell, the NFL commissioner, said last month, “we need to be listening.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not do away with all Indian sports teams names since we have treated them so unfairly over their history? Nah, just cherry pick your battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not do away with all Indian sports teams names since we have treated them so unfairly over their history? Nah, just cherry pick your battles.

If they manage to beat the Redskins, that opens the door for all legions of "offended" people to not only take down the rest of the Native American mascots, but also to take down every mascot that involves people. I'm not kidding. It will get that bad eventually.

Every sports team is going to have to be named after something boring, like heck...I don't know, a dumb bird or something... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Paco

One of the biggest issues I have with those on the pro-change side is how self-righteous some of them are. They act like "Redskins" is so blatantly and obviously racist, and then they act so condescending towards those against the name change for not seeing things the way they do. When in reality, the issue is not so black and white, as I said earlier. I see more of this kind of attitude from those for the name change than those against it.

Not saying you're this way, but just an observation in general.

Where I am at, I see it as being a racial slur, no grey area. When I hear it do I drop my jaw and say "HOW DARE YOU SIR!"? No.

However I do see how its offensive to a group of people. If a percentage of that group shrugs their shoulders and say "whatever" while there is another percentage that is truly offened, then yeah, it should change. Even if that percentage is a minority of a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they manage to beat the Redskins, that opens the door for all legions of "offended" people to not only take down the rest of the Native American mascots, but also to take down every mascot that involves people. I'm not kidding. It will get that bad eventually.

Every sports team is going to have to be named after something boring, like heck...I don't know, a dumb bird or something... :D

Oh - the slippery slope argument, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Paco

One of the biggest issues I have with those on the pro-change side is how self-righteous some of them are. They act like "Redskins" is so blatantly and obviously racist, and then they act so condescending towards those against the name change for not seeing things the way they do. When in reality, the issue is not so black and white, as I said earlier. I see more of this kind of attitude from those for the name change than those against it.

Not saying you're this way, but just an observation in general.

That's true. It's a difficult road to navigate sometimes because the idea is to change OPINIONS and BELIEFS and not just actions, but you can't come across as overly "well I'm obviously right and you're wrong so you're an idiot" or else you'll never get your point across.

I'm neutral on religion, but it's like I tell my friends about religion: the only thing more annoying than a religious zealot who cherry picks Bible verses is an atheist ****nozzle who tells you every second of the day how smart they are.

The slippery slope argument is invalid to me, but this is a separate issue: how do we get the best result for everyone? And the answers aren't ever as clear as they would seem, for both sides on almost every issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. It's a difficult road to navigate sometimes because the idea is to change OPINIONS and BELIEFS and not just actions, but you can't come across as overly "well I'm obviously right and you're wrong so you're an idiot" or else you'll never get your point across.

I'm neutral on religion, but it's like I tell my friends about religion: the only thing more annoying than a religious zealot who cherry picks Bible verses is an atheist ****nozzle who tells you every second of the day how smart they are.

The slippery slope argument is invalid to me, but this is a separate issue: how do we get the best result for everyone? And the answers aren't ever as clear as they would seem, for both sides on almost every issue.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now