# Getting Offended on Behalf of Other People (Redskins) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2016, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167 "2016-05-19T15:41:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/241 "2016-05-24T20:26:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 100% of NA can agree it’s “racial” without thinking it’s in any way “horrible”. Note that “horrible” is **Bricker** ’s choice of term: AFAICT none of the polls in question used it, and I don’t think it’s an appropriate or representative synonym for the terms they did use. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Totally, utterly worthless garbage poll. […] > Notice he gives several other questions, but doesnt bother to EVER give the results for them […] > And this dude, James Fenelon is a professor, paid for by our tax dollars, yet he releases this garbage… while hiding the other answers. :dubious: Wipe the froth from your lips and calm down. The link I provided states very clearly that it’s a press release based on a first analysis on the survey results, not the report in its entirety. I don’t know where to access the full report itself. > [@spifflog](#): > > […] the Washington Post is a very liberal newspaper, that has been critical of the Redskins name for a decade or more. If they wanted anything, it would have been for 91% of those polled to be offended, not vice versa That’s debatable. As the [editorial I linked to](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/redskins-poll-is-really-about-a-new-nfl-stadium-2016-05-20) in an earlier post remarked, Snyder has been seeking a new stadium for the team, but has met with some lack of enthusiasm partly due to concerns about the team name. The editorial suggests that what the _Post_ is trying to do is reassure locals that the name isn’t actually a problem, so they’ll be more supportive of the relocation: > [@](#): > > Without Snyder or his organization even opening their mouths, the Post posited that “Native Americans’ indifference” (in a poll of self-identified Native Americans that the paper itself conducted, mind you) “could reset D.C. stadium talks.” […] > > That’s where this absolutely stops being about names and mascots and starts being about what polls are often about: political campaigning. The Post may not be Snyder’s lap dog — isn’t the word “may” fun? — but it’s the district’s paper of record and has an interest in seeing a new stadium occupy RFK Stadium’s spot after it is vacated in 2018 and once the NFL team’s lease in Landover expires in 2027. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/242 "2016-05-24T20:55:52Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The link I provided states very clearly that it’s a press release based on a first analysis on the survey results, not the report in its entirety. I don’t know where to access the full report itself. > : AFIAKI, you can’t as he hasn’t released it. Likely due to the issues i pointed out. I think it’s been 6-7 years? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/243 "2016-05-24T21:16:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > AFIAKI, you can’t as he hasn’t released it. Likely due to the issues i pointed out. I think it’s been 6-7 years? 😕 In the press release it says that the report “is called ‘Redskins Survey Research Outputs 1 on 4-23-14’ and is available from the Center at Cal State San Bernardino or the Principal Investigator James Fenelon”. And where do you get your estimate of “6-7 years”? The date in the report title seems to indicate it’s actually been about two years (which agrees with the timeline of news stories about the survey such as [this one](http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143?page=0%2C2)). You know, **DrDeth** , for someone who’s complaining that _other_ people aren’t reading things carefully enough… :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/244 "2016-05-24T22:42:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 In the press release it says that the report “is called ‘Redskins Survey Research Outputs 1 on 4-23-14’ and is available from the Center at Cal State San Bernardino or the Principal Investigator James Fenelon”. And where do you get your estimate of “6-7 years”? The date in the report title seems to indicate it’s actually been about two years (which agrees with the timeline of news stories about the survey such as [this one](http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143?page=0%2C2)). > > You know, **DrDeth** , for someone who’s complaining that _other_ people aren’t reading things carefully enough… :dubious: Yes, I know it\* says that,\* but it’s\* not \*available on the Center at Cal State San Bernardino site. If you think it’s available, link to it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/245 "2016-05-24T22:53:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, I know it\* says that,\* but it’s\* not \*available on the Center at Cal State San Bernardino site. 😕 Nowhere does the press release say that the full report is available on a website. Where did you think you saw that? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/246 "2016-05-25T00:31:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The First Amendment is what you might call a key point here, actually: _In re Simon Shiao Tam_, 808 F.3d 1321 (2015). If you were talking to lawyers referencing the name of a case might be an attempt at communication instead of obfuscation. But you aint. The issue of this thread is whether members of the public at large should be bothered by the use of an overt ethnic slur as the name of a sports team. Is that assessment altered if only a minority of the small and relatively impoverished minority states they experience racial offense from the name? Should tax dollars be used to support the team to build a new stadium, etc. for that team? The discussion centers around how offensive the term is and what level of offense to what sort of group warrants what sort of public reaction. No, trademark protection was not the center of the discussion. Would “The Ragheads” be okay? Maybe. The First Amendment is what you might call a key point here but you might be the only one. ---
**Author:** ![Goofus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7feea3/32.png) [@Goofus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Goofus)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/247 "2016-05-25T01:07:29Z")
Disappointingly, the Simon Tam case has nothing to do with the government’s power to train psychic female assassins. Instead, it’s about whether some Asian guy can trademark his band name (“The Slants”). The court ruled that the trademark could not be denied for being disparaging, and that particular section of the law was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The court did not consider other sections of the law which prohibit, for example, immoral or scandalous trademarks. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/248 "2016-05-25T01:07:57Z")
The ruling he cites to is relevant only to the narrow question of whether denying a federal trademark registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 on the basis that the relevant term is disparaging or scandalous violates free speech rights. That does not make the First Amendment relevant to the broader issue of whether the Redskins should change their name, whether people who.want then to change it are wrong to want it, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/249 "2016-05-25T02:14:35Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > If you were talking to lawyers referencing the name of a case might be an attempt at communication instead of obfuscation. But you aint. > > The issue of this thread is whether members of the public at large should be bothered by the use of an overt ethnic slur as the name of a sports team. Is that assessment altered if only a minority of the small and relatively impoverished minority states they experience racial offense from the name? Should tax dollars be used to support the team to build a new stadium, etc. for that team? > > The discussion centers around how offensive the term is and what level of offense to what sort of group warrants what sort of public reaction. No, trademark protection was not the center of the discussion. Would “The Ragheads” be okay? Maybe. > > The First Amendment is what you might call a key point here but you might be the only one. One issue in this thread is what to do about the horrible, overt ethnic slur. And the fact that Snyder can exclusively profit from his team’s name and logo on merchandise has been discussed with disapproval; the attempts to use the PTO and the courts to divest him of legal rights to protect his trademark has been discussed with dewy-eyed admiration. Therefore, the fact that the First Amendment prevents this approach is relevant. But of course, I understand it’s not welcome news. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/250 "2016-05-25T02:17:24Z")
> [@Goofus](#): > > The court ruled that the trademark could not be denied for being disparaging, and that particular section of the law was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The court did not consider other sections of the law which prohibit, for example, immoral or scandalous trademarks. Yes. But that’s because the case only involved a mark denied for being disparaging. Those other categories were not at issue. Do you have an opinion on the constitutionality of denial of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/251 "2016-05-25T02:18:28Z")
> [@Goofus](#): > > Disappointingly, the Simon Tam case has nothing to do with the government’s power to train psychic female assassins. Duh. That’s _In re River Tam_. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/252 "2016-05-25T02:30:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. But that’s because the case only involved a mark denied for being disparaging. Those other categories were not at issue. > > Do you have an opinion on the constitutionality of denial of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks? The Patent and Trademark Office seems to think that if the “disparaging” portion of Section 2(a) is unconstitutional, then so is the “immoral” and “scandalous” portions. It has put all such trademark examinations, opposition proceedings, and cancellation proceedings on hold pending the completion of court review. > [@Bricker](#): > > And the fact that Snyder can exclusively profit from his team’s name and logo on merchandise has been discussed with disapproval; the attempts to use the PTO and the courts to divest him of legal rights to protect his trademark has been discussed with dewy-eyed admiration. Again, the PTO’s position is based entirely on the argument that cancellation or denial of a trademark registration _does not_ in fact divest a trademark owner of legal rights to protect its trademark, because registration is not the source of trademark rights. If the Redskins trademark registrations are cancelled and if the Slants registration is rejected, the victory is almost entirely symbolic, in my view. Similarly, in my view, if the Federal Circuit’s ruling in _In re Tam_ stands, the victory for the trademark owners is also almost entirely symbolic. This legal proceeding is very narrow and really is a side issue the actual question s surrounding the Redskins’ name. I would argue that that also means that the free speech question is nothing more than a narrow side issue in this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Goofus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7feea3/32.png) [@Goofus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Goofus)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/253 "2016-05-25T02:59:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you have an opinion on the constitutionality of denial of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks? The law in this case is seventy years old, so my opinion is that it’s constitutional until a court says it isn’t. Are you aware of any pending challenges to the “immoral” and “scandalous” provisions? A quick google indicates they’re considered synonymous and generally applied to sexually-explicit marks. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/254 "2016-05-25T03:29:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > One issue in this thread is what to do about … Yes, one side issue has been what to do about it, and one sub-discussion of that side issue has been the issue of rescinding the trademark registration of the team. Hardly a key point of the discussion. As far as that sub-discussion of one side issue goes … IANAL (and a day does not go by that I do not express gratitude for that!) but for now the loss of registration holds. Maybe the appeal will win on the basis of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling you cited … or maybe the appeal to SCOTUS of that ruling by the PTO will reverse the lower court’s ruling. I don’t know and claim no expertise of particular interest. If registering, say, the trademark of “Wetback Rapist Taco Bowl” (a football invitational run exclusively by Trump Enterprises), is ruled as required as part and parcel of the First Amendment, well if SCOTUS so rules, it so rules. As of now both the ruling against the Redskins and that _In re Simon Shiao Tam_ rulings are extant and subject to appeal, yes? So In any case such is completely tangential to whether “Wetback Rapist Taco Bowl” used as the name for the football invitational is or is not insulting, is or is not something that non-Hispanics should express an opinion about, whether or not non-Hispanics should lobby to exert every legal means of pressure to have the name changed, and under what conditions a majority in a power position should be concerned about potential abuse of that power of a relatively powerless minority member of society. So uh yeah … central? Not. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/255 "2016-05-25T03:30:04Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 Nowhere does the press release say that the full report is available on a website. Where did you think you saw that? "and is available from the Center at Cal State San Bernardino ". It’s not. They have never heard of it, have no listing for it. Simple to prove me wrong- \*get a copy. \* ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/256 "2016-05-25T04:54:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > "and is available from the Center at Cal State San Bernardino ". Uh, “is available from” doesn’t automatically mean “is on the website of”. [QUOTE=DrDeth] It’s not. They have never heard of it, have no listing for it. [/quote] What do you mean, “never heard of it”? Did you talk to somebody who said so? I dunno if it’s because you’re still upset, but you’re not being very clear here. [QUOTE=DrDeth] Simple to prove me wrong- \*get a copy. \* [/QUOTE] Hey, I already said that **I** don’t know how to access the full report. I was merely pointing out that a full report is not the same thing as a press release, so you can’t get your knickers in a twist about “missing data” just because not all the data is in the press release. I’m not going to take anything for granted about what the report contains if I haven’t seen it, but I’m also not going to take anything for granted about what _you_ claim the report contains (or doesn’t contain) if _you_ haven’t seen it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/257 "2016-05-25T16:50:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Uh, “is available from” doesn’t automatically mean “is on the website of”. > What do you mean, “never heard of it”? Did you talk to somebody who said so? I dunno if it’s because you’re still upset, but you’re not being very clear here. > Hey, I already said that **I** don’t know how to access the full report. I was merely pointing out that a full report is not the same thing as a press release, so you can’t get your knickers in a twist about “missing data” just because not all the data is in the press release. > > I’m not going to take anything for granted about what the report contains if I haven’t seen it, but I’m also not going to take anything for granted about what _you_ claim the report contains (or doesn’t contain) if _you_ haven’t seen it. I sent a email, they auto-responded with “That is not a listing we have.” So, find the full report, if you think it exists. The _press release_ is garbage. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/258 "2016-05-25T17:33:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Unfortunately I am over my month’s allotment for WaPo so trusted FYL’s post as a source. If inaccurate then that critique is withdrawn. I don’t know if that suffices. Spifflog’s point was that the WP was a highly reputable outfit, with no apparent incentive to run a bad poll incorrectly downplaying the level of offence. You waved that off. But in retrospect, his point was correct. Before assuming that the WP had made a poll with “crap data” and declaring that here, you should have verified that the claim was accurate, or else qualified your position. On one side you had the professional reputation of the WP, and on the other you had some anonymous guy posting on the internet, and weighing the two in balance you should have been a lot more circumspect about it. > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Here is how they selected “Native Americans” (according to the authors of the poll): > > “All survey respondents identified themselves as Native Americans, American Indians or Alaska Natives when asked, “Do you consider yourself white, black or African American, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, mixed race or some other race?” While many multi-racial Americans have partial Native American ancestry, the survey focused only on those who first identified themselves as Native Americans. This definition most closely compares with the Census Bureau’s categorization American Indian Alone, rather than American Indians in combination with another race.” > They didn’t say that they only accepted people who have full or partial ancestry. As long as the person identified Native American first, they are Native American in this poll. They could be 1/32 (or frankly 0/32 Native American) and the rest Irish, and this poll would still count them. They can claim that this most closely compares to the Census Bureau categorization of American Indian alone, but there’s nothing to back that up. They would not be disqualifying mixed race subjects (or totally non Indian subjects for that matter). And in the census, that is over 5 million people as it is not remotely the same as those that are solely Indian in the census. The same thing applies to the census. There’s nothing to stop anyone from identifying themselves however they want in the census. What the census does - per the linked source provided earlier - is ask people to check a box for every ancestry they identify with. The ones who check only the “American Indian” box are the 2.9M. This is most closely comparable to asking people what ethnicity they are and accepting those who respond only with “American Indian” (or similar). So the WP is solid on this too. > [@Kimstu](#): > > No, that’s a ridiculously inappropriate analogy. What I’m saying is more along the lines of _“You can avoid dying in a 120mph car crash by **not driving at 120 mph** , which is per se risky and unnecessary in highway driving anyway. Of course, that doesn’t solve the problem of dying in lower-speed car crashes, but just because we can’t solve all the problems doesn’t mean we shouldn’t solve this one.”_ > > There’s no need in any ordinary circumstances to drive 120mph on the highway: it’s an avoidable and unacceptable risk. The fact that other modes of driving are still not 100% safe, even if you’re not going 120, doesn’t mean that it’s pointless to avoid doing 120. I agree that it’s similar to your 120 MPH analogy too. The general rule in that case is that every potential risk has to be balanced against the potential reward and measured against the risk/reward ratio of an alternative approach. And the same would go for naming teams. The general principle is that you can’t always avoid offending someone but you need to balance the plus/minus ratio and decide what’s worthwhile and what’s not in a given instance. So the idea that you can single out ethnic based names as being ruled out on that basis based on the simple fact that _someone_ is offended doesn’t hold. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/259 "2016-05-26T01:46:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know if that suffices. … “Suffices”? Suffices for what? For your satisfaction? If so, well sorry, but who in Hell cares about that? It suffices for me. I am glad that for you the fact that a media source has commissioned a poll is adequate enough to accept it unquestioningly. Well not glad really, but your belief that all that accepting data is one study using techniques that other expert pollsters have previously stated are inadequate to address the question requires is that a media source commissioned it is not really something that matters to me. Believe it or not I read articles in a variety of very reputable scientific and medical journals critically too. NEJM is great, but even articles there can have conclusions that overreach the data and have flaws in study designs. In a community of scientists a single study that gives an unexpected result and one that conflicts with another study is not accepted as truth not to be questioned because it was published in a reputable journal. A reputable source alone does not “suffice.” [An interesting take](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/redskins-poll-is-really-about-a-new-nfl-stadium-2016-05-20) FWIW … > [@](#): > > … The Post may not be Snyder’s lap dog — isn’t the word “may” fun? — but it’s the district’s paper of record and has an interest in seeing a new stadium occupy RFK Stadium’s spot after it is vacated in 2018 and once the NFL team’s lease in Landover expires in 2027. It’s where the pens and pads drop, the pom-poms come out and the Fourth Estate suddenly plays the 12th Man. It’s a scenario we’ve witnessed in San Diego and Las Vegas, and it’s a tightrope being tread by Boston Red Sox and Fenway Sports Group owner John Henry and the staff at the Henry-owned Boston Globe. … For the record - polling the Native American population is well known to be very tricky to do. I respect the challenges and that they seem to have tried hard. It is interesting that the reports about the poll did not highlight that over 1 in 5 of those self-identified as Native Americans polled feel the word is “disrespectful” of Native Americans and that even though 43% have heard any good amount about the team name issue 20% find the issue to be important to them. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167/260 "2016-05-26T13:22:29Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > “Suffices”? Suffices for what? > > For your satisfaction? If so, well sorry, but who in Hell cares about that? Well that’s fine as a Tough Guy statement, but you’re missing the mark. I meant suffices for the use to which you put it. You came on strong about this poll, declaring it to be “crap”, based on what turned out to be incorrect facts that you had no real knowledge of. To say “well, I didn’t know what I was talking about but I trusted some random poster’s assertion” does not suffice as a justification for that approach, and calls into question the validity of other things that you might say – which might turn out to have a similarly nonexistant basis. > [@](#): > > I am glad that for you the fact that a media source has commissioned a poll is adequate enough to accept it unquestioningly. Well not glad really, but your belief that all that accepting data is one study using techniques that other expert pollsters have previously stated are inadequate to address the question requires is that a media source commissioned it is not really something that matters to me. Do you appreciate that there’s a middle ground between “accept[ing] it unquestioningly” and declaring it to be “crap”? I assume you’re capable of that. You can look through my posts here and you won’t find me advocating accepting this poll unquestioningly, and there’s nothing I’ve said to you which suggests that. So your assertion that this is what I’ve been advocating here is just self-serving “crap”. > [@](#): > > Believe it or not I read articles in a variety of very reputable scientific and medical journals critically too. NEJM is great, but even articles there can have conclusions that overreach the data and have flaws in study designs. In a community of scientists a single study that gives an unexpected result and one that conflicts with another study is not accepted as truth not to be questioned because it was published in a reputable journal. Again, you’re obfuscating here. Reading articles critically is all fine. But the point here – and I’ve said this before so you shouldn’t pretend otherwise - is that you didn’t read it. You had no idea what the data set was because it was behind a paywall and you relied entirely on another poster who turned out to have been mistaken. You read NEJM critically, that’s fine. You hear some anonymous guy attributing something idiotic to the NEJM and declare the NEJM to be crap on that basis without having read it, then you’re being arrogant and foolish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-other-people-redskins/755167.md?page=14)