Great. Then if the numbers add up, they should probably show them. It’s a single number.
Washington Political Corrections
It doesn’t matter how many Native Americans find the term offensive, it’s offensive if enough people find it offensive.
For the record, Merriam-Webster lists “nigger” as “usually offensive.”
It also lists “motherfucker” as “usually obscene.”
I wouldn’t read a whole lot into that “usually.”
Actually that is exactly what you said. Nice effort to move the goal post though.
You should have read the article before you posted.
That is a huge, well respected polling firm and the Washington Post is a a huge, well respected newspaper. Ask to see their homework all you’d like. Bottom line is their polling data is almost certainly correct, and the article is as well. As I stated, I read the Post every day here, and the skewer the Redskins all the time over their name and they would have liked nothing more than to see the figures reversed.
Enjoyable show watching all the spinning going on here though.
I keep coming back the same point others make. It’s inconceivable, to have a predominately black school have their mascot be the Ridell High Negros - or worse. Just never going to happen. And yet there are Reservations with the Redskin mascot. I just can’t understand if it’s that offensive, to even 9% of Native Americans, how that could be. So I’m left thinking it’s not all that offensive to people - unless they’re looking for something to get fired up over.
The question is how many, and how offensive does it have to be? Vikings? Cowboys? 3 million people offended? 300,000? 300? 3?
OK, I retract that.
Still it’s at least consistent with what I’m saying, if not an indication for it.
You mean this line? *The survey was conducted based on similar work done on the Cleveland Indians Chief Wahoo mascot,
when analysts found mainstream research agendas systematically mis-identified Native Americans to
benefit dominant ideologies that American Indians supported the mascot and team name.
*
which has* no data*?
And, like i said 44% of those surveyed belonged to a recognized tribe.
Here is exactly what I said copied and pasted, and it is mathematically undeniable, and exactly what I’m still saying:
If you’re survey pulls out 500 people that consist of 1% of the population, then your survey had to have 50000 people in it. If you have a way to dispute this, then you’ve invented some new form of mathematics.
It’s patently offensive … the average person would think the word is offensive in a company’s brand name or advertising. Safest example I can think of is the “cave man” commercials Gieko ran some years ago.
I think the problem is that when a white person goes up to a NA and asks, the NA is just going to shake his head and not even try … “Nah, it’s okay I don’t mind”
And, like I said, 44% surveyed claimed to belong to a recognized tribe.
My own view is that I don’t really care if other people are offended. As long as they don’t try to turn that feeling of offense into an effort to strip trademark registration away from the team, they are welcome to be as offended as they wish.
But a trademark can be offensive and disparaging, because we have a First Amendment.
It seems to me that whether a trademark can be offensive and disparaging and whether an offensive and disparaging trademark can be registered aren’t the same issue, but I suppose we are likely to find out soon enough whether that’s the case.
Oh, just never mind.
Just one if it’s me. Other than that I don’t know, but I think the number of offended people is growing as offense is contagious.
One wrong thing (sex with minors) and is considered unacceptable without trying to argue that “oh the kids are okay with it, so what’s the fuss?”
The other wrong thing (using a slur as a team name) has a bunch of people arguing that “some Native Americans are okay with it so what’s the fuss?”
Ridiculous.
Or maybe people are just feeling more empowered to speak up about stuff they’ve always been bothered by.
I’m sure, but I’m also sure there are people who didn’t know that they were offended before.
Yeah, I wonder about that number. I suspect the Venn diagrams of “People who think they have some NA blood in them, but don’t,” and “People who understand the legal arcana of tribal affiliation,” have very little overlap. How many people who said they belong to a particular tribe in that poll understand that being a member of, say, the Cherokee, means more than, “My grandma used to say she was a quarter Cherokee!”
so much for white uber-prog “critical race theory” expensive college liberal-arts student types trying to force their far-left agenda on America.
You sound like a running dog lackey of the imperialist war monger.