|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The Washington Post editorial board said Friday it will stop using the word “Redskins” when referring to Washington’s football team, joining a growing list of other commentators who have renounced the term because they believe it disparages Native Americans. In a statement, the board said, “While we wait for the NFL to catch up with public opinion and common decency we have decided not to use the slur ourselves except when it is essential for clarity or effect.” The editorial board is separate from the news-gathering side of the organization, which executive editor Marty Baron said will continue to use the team’s moniker... |
Now that we're talking about the REDSKINS, I think the REDSKINS will finish 3rd in the division.
I just don't believe that the REDSKINS offensive line will hold up and protect Rg3. I think the REDSKINS defense will improve from last year now that Shanahan is gone and haslet has control over the REDSKINS defense. One more time, the REDSKINS are not going to be a threat to win the division.
Now that we're talking about the REDSKINS, I think the REDSKINS will finish 3rd in the division.
I just don't believe that the REDSKINS offensive line will hold up and protect Rg3. I think the REDSKINS defense will improve from last year now that Shanahan is gone and haslet has control over the REDSKINS defense. One more time, the REDSKINS are not going to be a threat to win the division.
You really stuck it to the pc police there.
Now that we're talking about the REDSKINS, I think the REDSKINS will finish 3rd in the division.
I just don't believe that the REDSKINS offensive line will hold up and protect Rg3. I think the REDSKINS defense will improve from last year now that Shanahan is gone and haslet has control over the REDSKINS defense. One more time, the REDSKINS are not going to be a threat to win the division.
You really seem to like the Redskins. Which is weird.
now you're getting it.....
No. Unless you think something good should not be done at all unless it can be done all the way at first.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy behind this whole movement. Refusal to use the work Redskins or display the Redskins logo will hurt their sales, so they won't do it. But by making this statement they can pretend to sound all high and mighty and courageous .
This is just like the statement that Slate magazine would no longer refer to the "Redskins" Since Slate is not a sports magazine and is only read by inside the beltway left wing academics, the statement means nothing.
Redskinsfacts - ( New Window )
Exactly. It's making a statement without affecting the folks who read your paper for sports news.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy behind this whole movement. Refusal to use the work Redskins or display the Redskins logo will hurt their sales, so they won't do it. But by making this statement they can pretend to sound all high and mighty and courageous .
This is just like the statement that Slate magazine would no longer refer to the "Redskins" Since Slate is not a sports magazine and is only read by inside the beltway left wing academics, the statement means nothing.
It means the tide is turning. And as the Editorial Board they are making a statement as to how they feel about this changing environment. Which is what any Editorial Board does, especially as it relates to a local issue.
Its a small step in the right direction, though people evaluating this on how ballsy it is probably don't think its the right direction and are probably just intentionally clouding that by question the move's ballsiness.
Its a small step in the right direction, though people evaluating this on how ballsy it is probably don't think its the right direction and are probably just intentionally clouding that by question the move's ballsiness.
Maybe ballston wasn't the best word for it. Courageous may have fit better. To me it seems weak. Either go all in or don't go at all.
He's too far in to make a big hoopla if he does change it. Which I think he will fight tooth and nail for many years.
Quote:
Then he will make a big to do about how magnanimous he is.
He's too far in to make a big hoopla if he does change it. Which I think he will fight tooth and nail for many years.
You give him more credit than I so. I think he is that obtuse.
Throw in a "sensitivity trip" to reservations where he will "charitably" buy beads, etc. from the Native pop and all is forgiven in his world.
Sadly, there are those that honestly fall for it - I have seen/heard people argue that the term now belongs to the organization and all previous connotations are null and void.
He's all in on this one and will go down fighting before he changes it.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy behind this whole movement. Refusal to use the work Redskins or display the Redskins logo will hurt their sales, so they won't do it. But by making this statement they can pretend to sound all high and mighty and courageous .
This is just like the statement that Slate magazine would no longer refer to the "Redskins" Since Slate is not a sports magazine and is only read by inside the beltway left wing academics, the statement means nothing.
Exactly. Where was all the WaPo pontificating over the last several decades? Ring up the scoreboard, they got PC points in for the month.
Quote:
Exactly. Where was all the WaPo pontificating over the last several decades? Ring up the scoreboard, they got PC points in for the month.
Where notable people stand on the name. (Click the image to expand and see other viewpoints) VIEW GRAPHIC
“The editorial board has been opposed to the Washington Redskins name for more than 30 years,” he said.
Congrats, OC. You're in the running for BBI's 'I have no idea what I'm talking about!!!' points for the month. As people more aware than you know, this is a hard fought competition, though. So don't start having someone count those points for you just yet.