That’s kind of its point.
What’s so bad about comparing Daniel Snyder to a Greek goddess?
I understand what the point is, and I do see the humor, but the collateral damage is to people that have nothing to do with anything this asshole has said.
I also don’t think the nine-year-old girl should have been name-called. I generally like The Onion, but I was disappointed in them for both of these decisions.
I wasn’t too impressed by it, but it is a damn sight better than a Bud, and it does have a cool design on the bottle. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, so I didn’t either.
What exactly do you imagine the collateral damage is?
Fair, and I dare Snyder to be offended by it.
Another unoffended Hebe checking in. Fair satire that makes the point well.
Just wondering though … everyone would also be okay if he was gay them using the Washington Fags, Black the Washington Niggers (in this context, no I will not asterick it out), and female the Washington Cunts?
Any of those cross the line? If so for anyone, why?
There is no line; it is humor. Without a line, how can one cross it?
I’m going to be honest and say calling a team comprised heavily of black players the “Washington Niggers”, even in jest, makes me a bit uncomfortable. I think something like “Washington Darkies” would work as a better satirical jab. “Darkies” seems like a better analogue to “Redskins” than “Niggers”. (Similarly, “kike” seems misplaced to me, while “hebe” doesn’t.)
The Onion piece does nothing for me. Maybe I’m don’t have enough irony in my diet, but it scores a big “meh” from me. I guess I’m getting hard to please in my old age.
Heehaw,
For some of us there is indeed a line where something crosses from funny to mean, for example. I had a (now deceased) family member who thought that he could say anything, no matter how insulting or hurtful, so long as he qualified it as a joke. He was wrong.
This does not cross the line and I don’t think any of my alternatives would either, YMMV, but there are “jokes” that certainly do.
monstro,
I get what you are saying but your consistency makes it not so interesting to me. 
No, there is no line IF it’s good satire and not just mindless dirty talk.
Every time these slurs are used, they are being kept alive and the stereotypes are reignited with the descriptions. If you have had your heritage thrown in your face with these slurs, reading them even in this context may be painful for some.
madmonk28,
Sounds like a true Scotsman argument to me. Mixed with a bit of “excluded middle.”
But I take your answer to mean that referring to a female owner as “that cunt owner”, a Black owner as “the uppity nigger”, etc. would all have been good satire as well. I agree in this case yet still wonder if everyone else does.
I agree that those would have been fair game.
My point was that well executed satire has no limits, but poorly exectuted satire does have limits. For a world class gymnast, the limits are gravity are much less than they are for me, an overweight middle aged guy. Louis CK has jokes in which he uses the words nigger and faggot and he pulls them off, a lesser comedian wouldn’t be able to. Know your limits and all that.
ETA: and the use of the Washington Blackskins with a Masai warrior as a mascot has been a point that gets a lot of play here in DC, but I’ve yet to read or hear a sports commentator to mention the idea of the Washington Niggers. For the record, once Art Monk said we should consider changing the name, I thought that was the beginning of the end.
I thought it was funny. For the record, I am 1/8th Native American (Commache) and I don’t see any problem with the Redskins mascot. It is all PC recreational outrage bullshit. I thought this PC nightmare was over in 90’s but people still want to bring it up as tactic to make themselves look compassionate about things they know little about and care nothing about deep down.
Indians don’t have red skin in the first place. Even if they did, the mascots are glamorizing them (us?) rather than making fun of it. I think it would be much worse to forget their legacy than to abolish all references to them in in popular perception. The latter is a new form of cultural genocide.
I can see you’re trying here but you’re not quite getting it.
It’s great that you’re able to rise above a derogatory term used at your people. But do you have the same indifference to other insults which you feel more personally? This is a predominantly liberal board and there have been many people that have posted offensive remarks directed against conservatives. Have you ever taken exception to any of these posts?
Secondly, let’s not pretend that redskin is not a derogatory term just because it’s not literally true. Hopefully you wouldn’t try to argue that porch monkey isn’t a derogatory term directed at black people because black people are not literally monkeys (and presumably many black people don’t have a porch either).
Nor is your cultural genocide argument very plausible. Nobody is suggesting that the legacy of the American Indians be dismissed or forgotten. We’re just suggesting people stop calling them redskins. It’s still possible to talk about American Indians in non-derogatory language.
You can’t really talk about American Indians at all in general terms. That is why I think Redskins is as good a term as any other. It is all tribal ranging from the Inuit down to the modern descendants of the Aztecs and they aren’t generally related at all. The Comanche who I have a connection with were a warrior tribe and they just killed the shit out of any other tribes that crossed them and took everything they had. There isn’t anything PC about that either but that is just the way they rolled. If I had to take offense at anything, it would be that Native Americans are so sensitive that they can’t tolerate a mascot glamorizing them in the first place.