Redskin trademark canceled. senators urge name change

[babe]

Depends on the context and the approach.

You're such a seamless absolutist, aren't you. Why wouldn't it depend upon the feelings of people, and upon what their expectations or sentiments are? And do we really have to buy into having to settle our personal differences in the political arena, and have government and judges authoritatively submit to progressive political agendas???

 

[One Brow]

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.

That's an impressive level of cognitive dissonance you have going on there. You understand why people experience real pain from an the use of a slur, and say that people should stop getting upset at slurs. You trot out "I have every right to say what I did there", and then say you didn't talk about your rights.

Not that I'm any different, except I'm aware that humans are not naturally rational, and we have to work hard for it.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, but when I disagree with you, it's clear that I can't understand opposing viewpoints, and you apparently can

I don't know if you can understand them better than I or not; I don't have any special insight into the feelings of groups I'm not a part of. I've made a choice to believe people when they tell me that a particular name or word choice creates pain or discomfort, even when I don't personally feel that pain. I would guess, phrased that way, you would probably think that is a good thing.

 

[One Brow]

I'm done responding because I know this is never-ending, and, for some reason, I fear that you are sexually stimulated by these back and forth "I'm smarter than everyone else and my reasoning is flawless" scenarios and I certainly have no interest in helping you **********.

Well, aren't you unhelpful? I guess its back to asstr.

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.

Of course. Sure, we have phrases like 'reasoned disagreement' or 'pick your poison' or 'agree to disagree', but you have your own pet usage where you use the word 'right to say that' to mean you have a reasoned disagreement. You didn't use that phrase at all because you were feeling defensive, and there no reason to think that making four consecutive posts, one immediately after flouncing, is any indication of how you were feeling.

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?

I don't recall talking about my right to say anything, only about your use of the phrase. Perhaps my memory of faulty. Could you point that out?

However, if I did use the phrase, it would probably be because I was feeling that my position was not defensible, and proclaiming a right to have it is the last refuge of the those desperate to justify their opinions, from what I can tell. I would probably be fooling myself into thinking I was being rational when I said it.

 

[One Brow]

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.

I agree that is part of it. You should keep in mind the speaker's intentions (if you check a few of pages back, you can I specifically said I didn't think Nate505 was intending to be sexist) as well as the actual words and the larger cultural context in which they appear. They all matter.

 

[Stoked]

I agree that is part of it. You should keep in mind the speaker's intentions (if you check a few of pages back, you can I specifically said I didn't think Nate505 was intending to be sexist) as well as the actual words and the larger cultural context in which they appear. They all matter.

As does the audience and the people speaking out against it. You often have very good points. The problem is you take them to dramatic extremes. Such as this specific case. You are simply reading into something that isn't there with the nate comment.

Plenty of examples on here of what you are saying. This isn't one of them, imo.

 

[One Brow]

You're such a seamless absolutist, aren't you. Why wouldn't it depend upon the feelings of people, and upon what their expectations or sentiments are? And do we really have to buy into having to settle our personal differences in the political arena, and have government and judges authoritatively submit to progressive political agendas???

I would think the feelings of Native Americans, their expectations and sentiments, are strongly affected by by the context and approach when a white man dresses in Native garb. The context is different if you are taking classes on a reservation from Native Americans, participating in some tourist attractions, dressing up for Halloween, or going to a football game in Washington. The approach is different if you are imitating 1950s Westerns combined with loud whooping and tomahawk gestures or if you have carefully researched 1830s Cherokee garb and are trying to present it accurately and tell people about it. I'm not sure how this take is "absolutist".

Yes, sometimes we need to get government involved to settle our differences. I agree it's almost always unfortunate that this becomes necessary.

 

[One Brow]

As does the audience and the people speaking out against it. You often have very good points. The problem is you take them to dramatic extremes. Such as this specific case. You are simply reading into something that isn't there with the nate comment.

Plenty of examples on here of what you are saying. This isn't one of them, imo.

I accept that you don't see a cultural impetus behind saying things like "Man up!" (as opposed to, say, "Grow up!"). I see one. I see little prospect of either of us convincing the other. My respect for you generally is not diminished.

 

[LogGrad98]

I accept that you don't see a cultural impetus behind saying things like "Man up!" (as opposed to, say, "Grow up!"). I see one. I see little prospect of either of us convincing the other. My respect for you generally is not diminished.

Grow up is ageist.

 

[One Brow]

Grow up is ageist.

Yes, it is. I accept the empirical evidence that children think differently from adults, and therefore accept this sort of ageism as justified. I probably accept it too easily.

 

[VINYLONE]

The clear fact of life I saw was that people need something, some "other" to direct their purpose in achievement. We need to hate something to just make it worthwhile being different. Liberrals today hate anyone who stands in the way of their ideologies. In the South, it was probably the Federal "Carpetbaggers" and bureaucrats that fueled the issue as much as anything. If we had just passed on the whole "Civil War" and moved on to the development of farm equipment that could make freeing the slaves an economic necessity, and maybe say instituted a federal purchase program on a larger scale, and instead of sending them off to "Liberia" given them all a homestead right, with a little assistance, they might have moved more directly towards real economic success.

color of skin is only relevant in terms of the political uses of the issues. Today's "liberals" are the actual race-baiter hater folks because they see it as a way to power. They are busily building up a whole generation of "minorities" filled with race hatred for anyone who looks "successful" or who in any respect presents an obstacle to the political agenda. That's the view from the "Top" , if not from the dupes who fill the ranks of their political activist dullards who buy their propaganda and seriously believe it.

No offense, babe, but the idea that only one side of the aisle has the moral standing is an embarrassing position...almost childish. To be sure that with every issue, there has always been folks on the right side of history, the majority fall in line with the collective thought of the group they belong to.

Your liberal cues in respect to race sound indoctrinated propaganda. I will not argue that there aren't bigoted or racist liberals because we both know there are but to say one side is the "actual race-baiter" is laughable.

The concept of color of skin and denying access or rights as a result of that skin color has never been based in any sort of logic. True, in order to get the masses organized, folks capitalized on disinformation and fear but that had less to do with race and more to do with perception.

What minorities are you running into and where are you running into these folks that hate being successful? Furthermore, are you telling me folks on the right side of the aisle don't lose their minds when their political agenda is not being met?

People are people, man.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...offensive/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Interesting read.

I know exactly 3 American Indians (all of them of Navajo descent, one of them a descendant of one of the original navajo code talkers from WWII) and in an informal poll I can tell you that 100% of them find the term unoffensive.

Def interesting read. Thanks for sharing. As the poll referenced in the article stated, I think the majority of native American folks don't care.

im sad for those native americans who allow a word to dictate and control thier emotions.

People's actions have always been dictated by words. This is how we communicate and react to each other. I think we can both agree that if we met tomorrow and I started making remarks regarding your girlfriend/ wife that was in those pictures you uploaded, you'd probably react. Furthermore, I don't like the idea of making people uncomfortable or being an ******* to people. For instance, here in the area I live in there is a good amount of Armenian folks. The little neighborhood market I go to is owned and run by Armenians. They've always been good to me. But if ever one of them came to me and said that I said something that was disrespectful to their ethnicity, I would apologize and never say it again. Why would I do anything else?

how about redneck?

In short they should not be forced to change it by gov. but they should do it on their own. I'm not offended but I can see how it can be.

I don't think the government should be involved either.

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.

Emotions have always been dictated by communication.