DutchJazzer
Banned
ok is dressing up as an native amrican offensive?
Redskin trademark canceled. senators urge name change
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
I would be as well. I sad that people can read about cultural pressures, marginalization, and personal pain, and then they try to boil this down to allowing a word to dictate their emotions, because this sort of person it real and lacks empathy.
The team won't be forced to change it; they just won't be able to use the trademark to make a lot of money. If people really want them to keep the name, they'll still make it a point to buy the more expensive official merchandise.
I believe there are more specific complaints, such as concerning the Cleveland Indians mascot, but I'n not aware of any sizable factions complaining about those team names.
If it did, you would at least understand why people want it changed, and why it's hard for some people to ignore.
But it IS dictating their emotions. Not lessening the distaste/pain/emotions/rage/insertwordofchoice they feel at all as I believe them when they say it is offensive. But that does not make Fish wrong.
Depends on the context and the approach.
Why do you think I don't understand that? I certainly do.
Based on your responses in other threads, you react differently to calling someone a 'gun owner' or a 'gun nut'. Is that allowing the words to dictate your emotion, or is that a genuine response to the actual implications present in a particular word choice?
Basically I am in charge of my own emotions and feelings and I shouldn't give you, or anyone else, the power to affect that. Same applies to anyone else.
That doesn't mean a person has to stand for hate, or anything else they disagree with, but they are in charge, and responsible, of the way they respond to it. They are in charge of how they let it affect them.
That help?
So, you acknowledge that word choice affects your emotions, while saying word choice should ideally not affect your emotions (this is my honest understanding of your post, please correct me if I am in error). I think we should behave keeping in mind who people actually are, not who they might be ideally.
I don't at all. Do I really need to explain it to you?
My beliefs are different than every other person on the planet. How I interpret things is rational in my mind, no matter what others say. Obviously, every other individual is different than me and can have opposing viewpoints and explanations of a particular phenomena. Even though these beliefs may contradict my own, I understand them and consider them rational because they are sound interpretation based on their knowledge. We're just different.
I have every right to say what I did there, and it is a rational statement no matter how much you disagree. It seems you are the one who doesn't understand differing points of view, and for that, I pity you.
Everyone believes they are a rational person. Everyone is wrong.
No one questioned your right to say anything. What do you think it says about you that, when I pointed out how two posts showed contradictory opinions, you sprang directly to your right to say what you want, even though I didn't talk about your right to say anything? Does that speak to how rational you are?
Since you agree different interpret different phenomena differently, can you agree a particular team name, based on a slur, can be painful to hear for others, and is wrong to use for that reason?
In what way am I ruining anyone's beliefs in here? By daring to disagree?
First, those statements are not contradictory.
Second, I didn't talk about my rights to say what I please, instead, I talked about why people believe what they believe, and why I can understand different points of view.
Yeah, but when I disagree with you, it's clear that I can't understand opposing viewpoints, and you apparently can
Although, I'll leave you with this, because it is clear you misinterpreted what I said. Don't worry, it's a common mistake for those with limited understanding. I said, "I have every right to say that" in reference to my being able to say that and still have an understanding of the opposite point of view. I'm not talking about freedom of speech, I'm talking about my ability to have an opinion and still understand the opposite. In other words, I have the right to be understanding and still disagree.
What do you think it says about you that, when I pointed out how two posts are not contradictory opinions, you sprang directly to your right to say what you want, even though I didn't talk about your right to say anything?
What do you think it says about you that, when I pointed out how two posts are not contradictory opinions, you sprang directly to your right to say what you want, even though I didn't talk about your right to say anything?
Fair enough but part of that is taking what is actually said instead of what you (generally speaking and not you specifically) want it to mean.