That's the best thing all of us can do, brotherman.
Live our lives unobtrusively, model our behavior after real role models, and try to be excellent to each other.
Washington who?
- Thread starter Legatron4
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Live our lives unobtrusively, model our behavior after real role models, and try to be excellent to each other.
bluecoconuts
Legend
I think that's a bit of a slippery slope to be honest. Just because it isn't socially acceptable to say certain things like racist terms, or different things doesn't mean that suddenly people are going to be hauled off to jail for getting in arguments and throwing insults back and forth. The only way I can see someone being arrested is if they get to the point where the other person takes their own life because of it, and at that point it's more about harassment. In terms of being crucified for saying things, typically people can understand context and tone, so if you say "That's kinda gay" it's unlikely you'll suddenly be under fire for it, at least by the rational majority.
I just don't see how pointing out that the Redskins is a somewhat racist name is suddenly going to make America into a bunch of pussies. It's a kneejerk reaction that people have every time there's change going on. There's always people who push change, and always people who resist it. Not changing isn't going to make America collapse because we can't keep up, and changing it wont make America into pussies. At one point it was thought that giving minorities rights and letting them fight in our military would make our nation soft, then it was gays, and neither of those happened. Changing Washington's football team name, and not thinking it's acceptable to go around say certain things wont do it either.
bluecoconuts
Legend
All those social norms existed in the past as well, it was a different style, different way of talking, but there were still social norms and if you didn't do what was socially acceptable it would offend people.
People still work and people still do whatever they gotta do and go home, it's no different. We just have different social norms today than we did in the 40's and 50's.
WestCoastRam
Legend
This is what makes our country great. The tension. Our country was founded with different branches in tension with each other so that no one branch of government became too powerful. Such tension extends into your culture too. Too much PC influence can quash debate (notice the issue of "triggering speech" on college campus shutting down discussions). However, unfettered speech promotes privilege and can be dangerous (We are not allowed to yell "fire" willy nilly in a theater).
I'm pretty okay with the Redskin name going away. I'd probably feel different if it were my team - I acknowledge. I do think that the process of how this name might change is pretty much the way it should be. It is a process. It'll probably happen. And we don't live in a country where someone can force Snyder by gun-point to change the name.
I'm pretty okay with the Redskin name going away. I'd probably feel different if it were my team - I acknowledge. I do think that the process of how this name might change is pretty much the way it should be. It is a process. It'll probably happen. And we don't live in a country where someone can force Snyder by gun-point to change the name.
Here is what I've come away with in reference to the Confederate Flag in the Great State of South Carolina....Governor Nikki Haley is easy on the eyes and is now my favorite Governor, so what does that say for me?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #127
@jrry32 @bluecoconuts i didn't feel like quoting the essays you guys wrote so I'll respond to both of you in this. It will be my last post on the matter(not because I'm upset, I just think we've come full circle with this).
Although this might be a little over dramatic I've come up with scenarios that have changed in the last 60 years. Admittedly most of them are silly, but they get the point across.
Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1955: Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2015: School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1955: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2015: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3: Jeffrey won’t sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1955: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2015: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Again, these might be a little over the top, but this is what I'm talking about. Change begins change, begins change. It's only going to get worse.
Although this might be a little over dramatic I've come up with scenarios that have changed in the last 60 years. Admittedly most of them are silly, but they get the point across.
Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1955: Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2015: School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1955: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2015: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario 3: Jeffrey won’t sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1955: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2015: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Again, these might be a little over the top, but this is what I'm talking about. Change begins change, begins change. It's only going to get worse.
I don't like the name because of it's negative connotations and think they should change it.
I don't like the confederate flag because of it's negative connotations and think states should remove it.
But those are societal issues and that's where it should be decided, NOT by the feds or courts. The feds are not constitutionally granted the authority to be the thought or speech police and should stop trying to be.
RamzFanz' insensitive societal comment follows:
I don't like the confederate flag because of it's negative connotations and think states should remove it.
But those are societal issues and that's where it should be decided, NOT by the feds or courts. The feds are not constitutionally granted the authority to be the thought or speech police and should stop trying to be.
RamzFanz' insensitive societal comment follows:
Last edited:
Here is what I've come away with in reference to the Confederate Flag in the Great State of South Carolina....Governor Nikki Haley is easy on the eyes and is now my favorite Governor, so what does that say for me?
You like MILFs?
This is why I like conversations about subjects like this is it gives me an opportunity to see others points of view etc.
The main point I think is a very small portion of the Native American people feel this is a racial slur and openly offended by it. If we listen to any small minority causing a stir in the news people like his would win out the day.
On the other side I doubt to many African Americans back in the day opposed or were indifferent about the Civil Rights movement.
edit:
BTW I found a really good article that has changed my mind about a lot of my viewpoints based on history and fact.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...y-redskin-is-racist-patent-overturned/373198/
I'm thinking it's not such a bad thing the teams name be changed now.
Last edited:
And in the 1950's my Grandfather used the N word generously and with contempt, I'm told, as did many. Later in life, when I knew him, as he matured and had relationships with blacks, he did not and would not tolerate it in his southern brethren either.
"As Terry Bradshaw puts it, “Finally I’ve given it some thought, and if it’s really offending people … Everybody loves the Washington Redskins but they can be the Washington something else.” This was never about PC, just manners."
I couldn't say it better than the author of the opinion posted by @Corbin, it's just bad manners regardless of the intentions of the user of the word.
And that concludes my preaching of the day.
Exactly.
Those types of people, expect the world to conform to their ideals of thinking. It may seem like something as simple as a flag or Nickname, but this way of movement can be dangerous.
Telling people how to think and what they should believe, is an extremely dangerous direction for this country to go.
Diversity may not be agreeable to all people, but it it certainly our prerogative. Even if it may be offensive to some.
I'm not banging the drum here for the Confederate flag or the Redskins nickname. I personally, couldn't care less about either. I just think that people freedoms of speech and beliefs are being dictated here.
Now if both of these were, without question, a symbol of tyranny or racism, then sure. Lose them.
Exactly. The courts and feds have no place interfering in public decorum when civil right violations aren't involved. Let societal forces decide as the constitution intended. In the end, we tend to get it right.
Somehow, the folks in this thread do not seem to understand that. Taking away the trademark is far different from the court ruling the name "Redskins" should be banned from the US lexicon because of discriminatory or epithetic inference.
Forget it, my Mom is calling me.
You left out the part where Jeffrey goes out 3 years later and shoots a dozen people.
Legatron, you're ignoring context on the gun scenario. Guns aren't allowed on school grounds anymore because of school shootings (like Columbine). People still love their guns and still have plenty of them. Especially in the South. Frankly, I think it's the right move to keep guns out of schools. My high school principal was actually killed in a school shooting so I'm all for finding ways to keeping guns off of school grounds.
I don't agree on the fight. There are still plenty of fights today in schools and I highly doubt they call in the SWAT team. A couple of my friends got in a fistfight in school and they didn't get punished. They ended up getting up, shaking hands, and being just fine.
I do agree that people are too quick to medicate in the present. Although, I don't think corporal punishment is a better alternative to that.
I don't like the name because of it's negative connotations and think they should change it.
I don't like the confederate flag because of it's negative connotations and think states should remove it.
But those are societal issues and that's where it should be decided, NOT by the feds or courts. The feds are not constitutionally granted the authority to be the thought or speech police and should stop trying to be.
RamzFanz' insensitive societal comment follows:
Well, this is partially true and partially not. The state of South Carolina made the decision on the Confederate flag. Which seems to be exactly what you're asking for.
In the Redskins case, it is in federal court because it is dealing with federal trademark law. The court did not rule that the Redskins need to change their name. They only ruled that they could not be protected under federal trademark law. So in that case, it is a federal issue.
I'm white, real white, almost off-white 
so I don't presume to tell people of other races how they should think or feel. If something I say to them offends them, then I will apologize and try to remember to correct myself in the future. That doesn't make me weak or a coward, quite the opposite. What the Washington team calls themselves makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. But after reading the responses by our Rams buddy @Mackeyser and others, I'm all for a change.
That being said:
Free speech is specifically meant to protect the most vile types of speech. We are losing that. Those who are celebrating victory after victory by the pc police might not be so happy when their turn comes, whatever that may be. It is all about control and it never ends with those types. They want to tell you how to think, how to speak, and how to live.
And btw racism, unfortunately, will always be a part of the human experience. Unless one wants to live in a Clockwork Orange type of society, which I for one don't. My father raised me to be accepting of all races and for that I'm grateful but not everyone was raised that way. Lessening bigotry and racism begins in the home with how mom and dad not only talk the talk but walk the walk, not by government or the Supreme Court. Laws only change the outside of a human being, not the heart.
so I don't presume to tell people of other races how they should think or feel. If something I say to them offends them, then I will apologize and try to remember to correct myself in the future. That doesn't make me weak or a coward, quite the opposite. What the Washington team calls themselves makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. But after reading the responses by our Rams buddy @Mackeyser and others, I'm all for a change. That being said:
Free speech is specifically meant to protect the most vile types of speech. We are losing that. Those who are celebrating victory after victory by the pc police might not be so happy when their turn comes, whatever that may be. It is all about control and it never ends with those types. They want to tell you how to think, how to speak, and how to live.
And btw racism, unfortunately, will always be a part of the human experience. Unless one wants to live in a Clockwork Orange type of society, which I for one don't. My father raised me to be accepting of all races and for that I'm grateful but not everyone was raised that way. Lessening bigotry and racism begins in the home with how mom and dad not only talk the talk but walk the walk, not by government or the Supreme Court. Laws only change the outside of a human being, not the heart.
Yes. The actions by South Carolina is exactly what is legal and proper. The state decided to remove the flag on their own just as it should be. That was my example of a proper change in attitudes by citizens and a state.
The Feds have no right deciding what can or can't be trademarked based upon their interpretation of the meaning. They do not have constitutional authority over speech and should stay out. Let anyone trademark anything that is their creation and let society decide if they will accept it.
The feds have every right to decide what can and can't be trademarked because they created the protection. Trademarks are not protected in the Constitution. They're protected by federal statute. They absolutely have Constitutional authority to determine what can and can't be trademarked...because if they didn't, NOTHING could be trademarked.(since they wouldn't have Constitutional authority to enact the statute)
So yes, they do have Constitutional authority to determine whether certain "speech" receives federal trademark protection.