• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Redskins Name Change Thread

awaken said:
How Ole Miss keeps the Rebel mascot is beyond me - an antebellum slave owner with confederate flag? How the heck do they sign an African American recruit with options?
Click to expand...

hqdefault.jpg
 
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
I'm new to this thread, but is sailordeac just being a troll, or is he/she truly that much of a cunt to continue calling Native Americans "Indians"

Some people are just fucking clueless.
Click to expand...

Wait what? Indians is offensive now?
 
Just seemed like a purposeful attempt to avoid what I assumed was the more accepted Native American moniker.






This thread's argument is as fucking stupid as white inbred fucktards claiming its ok to call a black person (african american?) the n-word because "they call each other that".

The bottom line is changing the name to a more appropriate mascot/name would hurt NO ONE, while evidence shows that the current name could potentially hurt or offend a large group or subset of people.

Whine about lib'ral PC bullshit all you want, it's still an unnecessary part of a sport that will not be damaged or hurt by changing the name.

ETA: for anyone confused
 
Last edited:
African American -> Nigger is the same as Native American -> Indian

Are you out of your fucking mind?
 
Umm...that's not what I said....I was referring to the Washington football team's nickname everywhere in that post except the first sentence
 
Screamindemon3 said:
African American -> Nigger is the same as Native American -> Indian

Are you out of your fucking mind?
Click to expand...

Yes, he is. Another mind lost to PC. Prospects for recovery of ability to think for self, very doubtful.

Classic PC symptoms: nothing else matters but the dictates of mindless PC; intent does not matter, nor does context, large parts of history and the history of its usage do not, the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the purported "victims" do not, and giving rational consideration to these factors does not.
 
Last edited:
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
Umm...that's not what I said....I was referring to the Washington football team's nickname everywhere in that post except the first sentence
Click to expand...

Someone give this guy his three e-PC points for using "Washington football team" instead of "Washington Redskins" on a message board
 
Fuck history, fuck intent, fuck all of that bullshit.

If it's used as a racial or ethnic slur and it offends people and THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS FROM A NAME CHANGE, then it should be changed. Period.
 
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
Fuck history, fuck intent, fuck all of that bullshit.

If it's used as a racial or ethnic slur and it offends people and THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS FROM A NAME CHANGE, then it should be changed. Period.
Click to expand...

Your name includes the word slim which could be hurtful or damaging to some out there. There's no negative repercussions, please change it.
 
Screamindemon3 said:
Your name includes the word slim which could be hurtful or damaging to some out there. There's no negative repercussions, please change it.
Click to expand...

Nice reduction of the issue,

but I said racial or ethnic slur. Not even remotely comparable.
 
The height of arrogance: ESPN says Native Americans don't know their own history well enough to be offended
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/espn-shaming-redskins-media-elitism-181146730.html

To quote Mr. Gutierrez, “It could just be that others don’t know the history of it and therefore aren’t offended,” noted Israel Gutierrez. “There’s so much history there. Maybe even Native Americans don’t know the history“.
Click to expand...

...they are the best example of an elite media that wants to think for the majority class, and then be offended when the majority class disagrees with them.

That sentiment about the Redskins name was found up and down the ESPN platforms with every agenda driven voice echoing the same talking points. And that’s my problem with ESPN.

They are agenda driven.
Click to expand...

...the larger point of concern amongst Native Americans that those interviewed “highlighted again and again other challenges to their communities that they consider much more urgent than an NFL team’s name: substandard schools, substance abuse, unemployment”.
Click to expand...

ESPN wants to be the MSNBC of sports, basically dividing their potential market in half.

Sometimes social issues make their way into the sports arena (Jackie Robinson, Ali, etc), but most enjoy sports as a respite. ESPN is trying to drive an issue that has no legs. For all the poker they have broadcast, you'd think they'd know when to fold a hand.
 
Anybody know why only 340 out of the 504 polled were asked the Redskin question? Or why polling took four months?

The Yahoo author doesn't seem to have many examples to support his assertion that ESPN is mounting some kind of campaign against the Redskins. And awaken, I'd love to see some evidence that they're trying to be MSNBC instead of a 24 hour sports network that thrives on keeping controversies lasting as long as possible regardless of the topic or angle.
 
Last edited:
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
Fuck history, fuck intent, fuck all of that bullshit.

If it's used as a racial or ethnic slur and it offends people and THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS FROM A NAME CHANGE, then it should be changed. Period.
Click to expand...

Nice capitalization bro, that way you really drive home that PC point to all the non bro believers out there. We all take you super serial right now.

However if you waddle your fat ass out of your safe space you could see that only 10% of the Indians are offended. 10% of fucking any group is offended by fucking everything. This in a non issue PC bro, its time to let it go. Take your SJW ball and waddle home.
 
PhDeac said:
Anybody know why only 340 out of the 504 polled were asked the Redskin question? Or why polling took four months?

The Yahoo author doesn't seem to have many examples to support his assertion that ESPN is mounting some kind of campaign against the Redskins. And awaken, I'd love to see some evidence that they're trying to be MSNBC instead of a 24 hour sports network that thrives on keeping controversies lasting as long as possible regardless of the topic or angle.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head (there could be more...)
Caitlyn Jenner
Curt Schilling
Redskins

To keep a controversy alive, you'd allow dissenting opinions and enjoy the debate. ESPN heavily promotes one side, and actively suppresses the other. Can you point to where they have done this?
 
DeaconSlim2.0 said:
Nice reduction of the issue,

but I said racial or ethnic slur. Not even remotely comparable.
Click to expand...

So if 100 Native Americans are polled and only 10 come back and say it's somewhat offensive, while 90 take no offense at all, you think the name should be changed?
 
awaken said:
Off the top of my head (there could be more...)
Caitlyn Jenner
Curt Schilling
Redskins

To keep a controversy alive, you'd allow dissenting opinions and enjoy the debate. ESPN heavily promotes one side, and actively suppresses the other. Can you point to where they have done this?
Click to expand...

Schilling was fired because he was told multiple times to stop doing X and he continued to do X.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
So if 100 Native Americans are polled and only 10 come back and say it's somewhat offensive, while 90 take no offense at all, you think the name should be changed?
Click to expand...

The polls are clearly flawed, how did you miss PHdeacs tin foil hat PC post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top