however I would find it absolutely hilarious if this happened and Snyder decided to fight it and for a few weeks we got to watch some of the less talented play by play guys bungle around with not saying the name.
Redsk... Red team, red teams ball on the 45. Touchdown... ... the team who had the ball.
however I would find it absolutely hilarious if this happened and Snyder decided to fight it and for a few weeks we got to watch some of the less talented play by play guys bungle around with not saying the name.
Redsk... Red team, red teams ball on the 45. Touchdown... ... the team who had the ball.
Simms this past week sounded a"Umm the Washington football team" LOL
if it is offensive. BUT.. for the FCC to get involved? What next? You get arrested/locked up for uttering the word Redskins?
We are slowly losing our freedoms. Freedom to say what you want and potentially offend someone. Then the freedom for that offended person to knock your fucking teeth out. That usually corrects most of the bullshit.
acting like a corporate crony. This action reeks of a backdoor censorship by the government using workarounds of the constitution to get their way. First they tried to take away their trademark, now they want to take away their right to exist as a franchise through government censorship.
If you don't like the Redskins, don't watch their games, don't buy their stuff and boycott their sponsors.
I'm glad to see the federal government working tirelessly to keep us same from words that some people think we should not hear.
than this for the FCC to worry about. Can you imagine all these years with the name Redskins being hurled all over tv. Who would have thunk that the word Redskins becomes the 8th word not to say on tv.
Anyone that thinks any actions to get rid of the name are extreme
The FCC is actually doing something good here because Snyder won't budge. It's a terrible argument to be like "hey, they don't do anything about other things I don't like so why should they do this?" This is a good thing, who cares if they stop people from using the word. Long overdue to get rid of this name.
Someone used the n-word as an example but there is a complicated history there. And it's apples to oranges here. It's not like there has been an NFL team called the Alabama N-words with a guy is blackface as the logo, because that would be the equivalent.
All I can do when I see anyone opposing this change is shake my head and repeat to myself. "Haven't we done enough to their people" we took there land and decimated their population, pretending to be diplomatic about it. They aren't even asking for equal rights or to be part of our society really, just that we don't continue to marginalize what they went through. Holy shit people, this is indefensible and I applaud anyone willing to do anything about it.
and its continued use an absurdity, but trying to turn regulatory agencies into agents of progressive change is problematic. Right now most of us (though not a majority of Americans) agree that the name is offensive and needs to go. But there are issues in which I find myself outside of the consensus, as I'm sure many of us do, and to leave it up to unelected bureaucrats to determine not merely what doesn't merit government protection but rather what sort of speech might deserve scrutiny and even punishment, that's a bridge too far for me. I'd sooner see them leverage the anti-trust exemption; not that I'd like to see them do that, I just think it'd be preferable to this.
It is apples to apples. It is an offensive slur and this is happening
Under the auspices of the FCC. The issue at hand is a derogatory term being carried over the air. A civil regulatory agency dedicated to mangling our communications networks when not throwing the nsa an assist is not the appropriate agent of change in this situation.
And as a previous poster suggested, a far more acceptable approach is for the govt to go after their exemption.
Very slippery slope when you get to talking about banning words.
How is this constitutional. Actually how is FCC censorship constitutional to begin with? Free country my ass.
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
everyone agrees the government has better things to do
Broadcasters should start calling them everything but Redskins and mock the FCC by saying the Washington "potato skins" "red hats" "thin skins" "red bloods.," etc.
the ox that the government wants to gore is something you like or a freedom you don't want to lose?
Wake-up people, this isn't about the use of the word, it's about being comfortable with giving the government the authority to decide for us what we can and cannot listen to or cheer for.
Four years ago, nobody cared now it's more of a government priority than protecting the president or controlling ebola.
RE: RE: While I can support them changing the name
How is this constitutional. Actually how is FCC censorship constitutional to begin with? Free country my ass.
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
I would be fine with eliminating that censorship. But I don't have TV, cable or satellite, so it wouldn't impact my life or my kids either way. I do have an issue with the precedent set with a move like this. If it were to happen though the bright side would be it screws with a division rival. Personally I have never understood the bugaboo about "curse words". The spoken language is limiting enough without eliminating the use of some words.
I was watching the "Chiefs" Monday. An Indian riding on a horse with a spear, Ikoye banging on a drum, tomahawk chops and indian chants from the fans. This is WAY more than the Redskins do.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indiams, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
I was watching the "Chiefs" Monday. An Indian riding on a horse with a spear, Ikoye banging on a drum, tomahawk chops and indian chants from the fans. This is WAY more than the Redskins do.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
But didn't Indians do all of those things? Riding horses, fighting with tomahawks, banging drums. I don't see the issue. Easy to get carried away with these things. The Redskins name is only offensive because of the "skin" part.
If anyone took the time to read instead of insist that America is going to become Totalitarian or applaud the FCC for taking the right steps proactively to resolve this would realize that this stems from a petition filed by a guy who seems to love to attach his name to lightning rod topics (smoking, obesity, etc.), with no additional content besides a 2 sentence soundbite from an FCC suit.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
RE: I don't understand why when some people are told
If anyone took the time to read instead of insist that America is going to become Totalitarian or applaud the FCC for taking the right steps proactively to resolve this would realize that this stems from a petition filed by a guy who seems to love to attach his name to lightning rod topics (smoking, obesity, etc.), with no additional content besides a 2 sentence soundbite from an FCC suit.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
If anyone took the time to read instead of insist that America is going to become Totalitarian or applaud the FCC for taking the right steps proactively to resolve this would realize that this stems from a petition filed by a guy who seems to love to attach his name to lightning rod topics (smoking, obesity, etc.), with no additional content besides a 2 sentence soundbite from an FCC suit.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
Well if they can't read then this post was for naught. =)
RE: I don't understand why when some people are told
In comment 11893425 Hammer said:
Who said this was a duplicate thread? [/quote]
It's not. But a duplicate thread to this one had to be locked because, for whatever reason, it wasn't deleted when the thread starter was made aware that it was a duplicate.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
A listener filed a complaint, and the FCC is considering it. That is what they do. I have a lot of issues with the FCC (and I've worked in broadcasting for 25 years), but this isn't one of them.
It will not, and should not, pass. It has no support within the FCC. I despise the Redsk*ns name, but this is no way to go about changing it. You can't penalize a station for airing an organization's legal name.
The Redskins were founded in 1932 and it took over 80 years
to discover that that name was offensive to Native Americans? I don't think so. What about the four high schools with a large majority of Native American students that used the name Redskins for their team? They must be awfully stupid.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
RE: The Redskins were founded in 1932 and it took over 80 years
to discover that that name was offensive to Native Americans? I don't think so. What about the four high schools with a large majority of Native American students that used the name Redskins for their team? They must be awfully stupid.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
Same regurgitated bullshit. People have been bitching about the name for forty years. That people are listening now doesn't mean nobody was complaining decades ago. And to say that the American public could stand to care more about the people than a dumbshit mascot is perfectly fine, but it's a sad bit of dishonesty to pretend the name's backers give a shit about Native Americans.
wont regulate broadband
wont fight data caps for home internet
wont fight verizon and att kicking off people with unlimited data
willing to jump on the anti redskins badwagon
christ, what a bunch of corporate cronies.
wont regulate broadband
wont fight data caps for home internet
wont fight verizon and att kicking off people with unlimited data
willing to jump on the anti redskins badwagon
christ, what a bunch of corporate cronies.
^^^^^This
Redsk... Red team, red teams ball on the 45. Touchdown... ... the team who had the ball.
wont regulate broadband
wont fight data caps for home internet
wont fight verizon and att kicking off people with unlimited data
willing to jump on the anti redskins badwagon
christ, what a bunch of corporate cronies.
+1000
Redsk... Red team, red teams ball on the 45. Touchdown... ... the team who had the ball.
Simms this past week sounded a"Umm the Washington football team" LOL
We are slowly losing our freedoms. Freedom to say what you want and potentially offend someone. Then the freedom for that offended person to knock your fucking teeth out. That usually corrects most of the bullshit.
If you don't like the Redskins, don't watch their games, don't buy their stuff and boycott their sponsors.
I'm glad to see the federal government working tirelessly to keep us same from words that some people think we should not hear.
If The n word is allowed on TV (which it is), why should Redskins be banned.
This activism is out of control.
Talk about a stereotype.
The FCC is actually doing something good here because Snyder won't budge. It's a terrible argument to be like "hey, they don't do anything about other things I don't like so why should they do this?" This is a good thing, who cares if they stop people from using the word. Long overdue to get rid of this name.
Someone used the n-word as an example but there is a complicated history there. And it's apples to oranges here. It's not like there has been an NFL team called the Alabama N-words with a guy is blackface as the logo, because that would be the equivalent.
All I can do when I see anyone opposing this change is shake my head and repeat to myself. "Haven't we done enough to their people" we took there land and decimated their population, pretending to be diplomatic about it. They aren't even asking for equal rights or to be part of our society really, just that we don't continue to marginalize what they went through. Holy shit people, this is indefensible and I applaud anyone willing to do anything about it.
And as a previous poster suggested, a far more acceptable approach is for the govt to go after their exemption.
Very slippery slope when you get to talking about banning words.
You do understand that this argument can be turned around and pointed at Rightwing tolerance of other issues, right?
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
Quote:
We'll tolerate you as long as you agree with us. People need to wake the fuck up.
You do understand that this argument can be turned around and pointed at Rightwing tolerance of other issues, right?
I do. Which is why I think it's an awful precedent.
I can't think of any that are banned, but I don't know any others that are used as an identity for a corporation.
Also, I don't know the answer to this but I was wondering if they show Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer and how they handle the dialect there?
I'm even OK with the public shaming people who decide to continue to use it.
I'm not OK with the government censoring the word.
Need more coffee.
Wake-up people, this isn't about the use of the word, it's about being comfortable with giving the government the authority to decide for us what we can and cannot listen to or cheer for.
Four years ago, nobody cared now it's more of a government priority than protecting the president or controlling ebola.
Quote:
How is this constitutional. Actually how is FCC censorship constitutional to begin with? Free country my ass.
So, you'd be totally cool with nudity, sexual content, cuss words, etc on TV then? Because, that's what you're saying.
You can't have it both ways. You're either against censorship of things that are, "OMG! Think of the children!" category or, you're completely against censorship and, you don't care what's out there for consumption.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indiams, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
Dislike Snyder, but what about the KC Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, and many college teams?
I think they should change their name to the Washington War Party. Leave the logo just as it is.
But didn't Indians do all of those things? Riding horses, fighting with tomahawks, banging drums. I don't see the issue. Easy to get carried away with these things. The Redskins name is only offensive because of the "skin" part.
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
Who said this was a duplicate thread?
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
BUT THIS ISN'T AMERICA ANYMORE
Just as the Phil Simms thread last week, where posters were criticizing him for being an activist and wearing his politics on his sleeve (when he was just answering a question as to whether or not he'd take advantage of the CBS Sports Exec's decision to allow broadcasters to choose whether or not they use the team) people are reacting to a single sentence headline and projecting the rest.
For those that can't be bothered to read - an apparent attention whore files a petition to prevent WWXX-FM (ESPN channel in DC) from renewing its licence due to using the term. FCC rep says they'll review, adds his opinion that the term is antiquated. Article goes on to state what could happen and how opinion on the term is changing. The government isn't censoring everything, there aren't going to be fines for using the term. This is one guy trying to make life even harder for the people keeping the name.
Big Brother is not leading an assault on your social liberties, but reading is pretty hard, huh?
Well if they can't read then this post was for naught. =)
Who said this was a duplicate thread? [/quote]
It's not. But a duplicate thread to this one had to be locked because, for whatever reason, it wasn't deleted when the thread starter was made aware that it was a duplicate.
Wallowing in ignorance = good?
Also, sometimes "the right thing to do" and "being PC" do intersect.
BUT THIS ISN'T AMERICA ANYMORE
I do feel bad for those threatened by this.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
Quote:
BUT THIS ISN'T AMERICA ANYMORE
I do feel bad for those threatened by this.
It would be really sad to see the Trail of Tears left behind as they watch 'Murica give way to these pussification efforts. I mean, their grandmother is 1/20th Injun and she doesn't care one bit. Just wait until the National Association of Individuals Taller than Average Height (NAITAH) come for our beloved Giants moniker. These slopes have never been slippier my friend.
Hahaha. Good posts.
I deleted mine, along with the Annette thread. Happy?
It will not, and should not, pass. It has no support within the FCC. I despise the Redsk*ns name, but this is no way to go about changing it. You can't penalize a station for airing an organization's legal name.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
The fact is that this is about the media. They love to go on crusades like this one and bring down obnoxious people like Snyder. The media is relentless and they will win.
But then out of their great concern for Native Americans will they follow up with stories about the poverty, unemployment and drug abuse rampant on reservations? Of course not. Coverage of the Redskins' name brings out thousands of emotional partisans. Coverage of Native American unemployment just brings out yawns.
Same regurgitated bullshit. People have been bitching about the name for forty years. That people are listening now doesn't mean nobody was complaining decades ago. And to say that the American public could stand to care more about the people than a dumbshit mascot is perfectly fine, but it's a sad bit of dishonesty to pretend the name's backers give a shit about Native Americans.