Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name......
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39. |
I find it really hard to reconcile this poll and the poll from 2014 where 67% of native americans polled agreed with the statement "The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol" (though it's a bad question).
Link - ( New Window )
Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...
The question should have ended at "offensive". I dont even know what they're asking. And it could be racist AND not bother some people. I bet a bunch of people would say that it's the name of a football team and doesnt really matter to them.
Wapo conducted it.
Quote:
who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller?
Wapo conducted it.
PFT says Wapo commissioned it, which makes more sense.
Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...
I agree. We know from the past that plenty of Native Americans are offended. I don't have the exact statistics but it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they would be offended.
Quote:
In comment 12963416 Deej said:
Quote:
who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller?
Wapo conducted it.
PFT says Wapo commissioned it, which makes more sense.
There's a clip on You Tube of John Oliver talking about sponsored studies. There's always an agenda.
Quote:
In comment 12963416 Deej said:
Quote:
who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller?
Wapo conducted it.
PFT says Wapo commissioned it, which makes more sense.
Annenberg Public Policy Center
The only way you can draw a conclusion from this, or other similarly shitty surveys, is if you go in with a preordained answer.
bullshit
None of this changes the fact that Redskins is a racial slur.
Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...
Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...
Yeah, pretty small sample and I'm sure different nations feel differently.
I understand the "Redskin" term being offensive, it is a putdown or slur. I don't understand Indian, Chief, Braves etc. The "redskin" protesters would get a lot more traction if they'd give up on the other mascot names that are not offensive.
The only way you can draw a conclusion from this, or other similarly shitty surveys, is if you go in with a preordained answer.
Aren't most political polls done with samples in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1250 respondents with some using smaller samples? 550 sound light, but not unheard of.
Annenberg Public Policy Center
Well that's a very legit outfit. Question is just so oddly worded.
Provide another, shitty, survey.
It's almost apropos...
Here is someone who has never been to New Haven...
Quote:
What are you afraid of?
Here is someone who has never been to New Haven...
Is that not enough reason to change the name? In all seriousness, what is the magic percentage where the name should be changed?
If you were at a party and you knew 1 out of 5 people thought a word was personally disrespectful and 1 of 10 thought it was personally offensive, would you use it?
Not a fancy poll...just an observation from every day people.
If even one Native American is offended it is one too many. We need to learn from our mistakes of the past. Why do we still show the old westerns on TV? Why was F-Troop allowed on TV. How could you allow Johnny Depp to play Tonto? Why hasn't Manhattan been returned?
All team names should be eliminated and replaced by colors.
The Blue
The Red
The Aquamarine
The Fuchsia
The Mauve
The Sandcastle White
The Lavender
The Salamander Brown
Glen Allen:
Richmond:
I live in Glen Allen, on the southeastern side about 5 minutes from the city limits. Is that specific enough?
But again - it is probably where you are and who you know as to their responses.
don't shoot the messenger, just Sioux me...
There are about 2.9M native americans or alaskan natives in the US. A sampling size of 504 would return results that have a margin of error of about +/- 4.5% at a 95% confidence level
The article itself says that margin is 5.5%, so they must be reflecting a 99% confidence level.
Either way, 504 poll respondents is plenty.
Glen Allen:
Quote:
The racial makeup of the CDP was 74.92% White, 19.54% African American, 0.41% Native American, 3.08% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 0.80% from other races, and 1.18% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.73% of the population.
Richmond:
Quote:
As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 204,214 people residing in the city. 50.6% were Black or African American, 40.8% White, 5.0% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 3.6% of some other race and 2.3% of two or more races. 6.3% were Hispanic or Latino (of any race).
I live in Glen Allen, on the southeastern side about 5 minutes from the city limits. Is that specific enough?
Quote:
What are you afraid of?
Here is someone who has never been to New Haven...
lol far from it!
Those calculations have some wonderful assumptions hidden in them; namely, that the underlying population follows some pretty restrictive assumptions (asymptotically normal, stable variance, independence, etc.). It also requires an a priori knowledge of the standard deviation of the population in response to the question. How can you figure out the mean of the answer before the question has been posed?
It's pretty bad; in fact, do you know where the underlying calculation of it came from?
Another fun fact; if you put in a different standard deviation, you can get an adequate sample size of 7! Who needs 504; we only need 7.
It's a bad calculation, and bad statistics.
Since a lot of people won't do it, here is the basis for the calculation.
For sufficiently large n, the distribution of \hat{p} will be closely approximated by a normal distribution.[1] Using this approximation, it can be shown that around 95% of this distribution's probability lies within 2 standard deviations of the mean. Using the Wald method for the binomial distribution, an interval of the form
(\hat p -2\sqrt{0.25/n}, \hat p +2\sqrt{0.25/n})
will form a 95% confidence interval for the true proportion. If this interval needs to be no more than W units wide, the equation
4\sqrt{0.25/n} = W
can be solved for n, yielding[2][3] n = 4/W2 = 1/B2 where B is the error bound on the estimate, i.e., the estimate is usually given as within ± B. So, for B = 10% one requires n = 100, for B = 5% one needs n = 400, for B = 3% the requirement approximates to n = 1000, while for B = 1% a sample size of n = 10000 is required. These numbers are quoted often in news reports of opinion polls and other sample surveys.
You are correct, Greg and it's pathetic. I guess the complaining somehow makes them feel good about themselves.
Go to Deej's link...
If that google explanation ( and I have no dobt it can be found on google) was used in technical much less scientific circles it would be DOA
This isn't a liberal/conservative divide. Or it shouldn't be. I am as conservative as anyone here. But this is a simple equation. About 300,000 people who are Native Americans are offended by this and that is acknowledged even by those who want to keep the name.
A racist man who owned the team named the team the Redskins. We don't know his motivations but saying he did it to "honor" them is a lot more farfetched than saying he did it out of insensitivity. Personally, I don't think it mattered at the time. But we have evolved. It matters (or should matter) now. And it does matter to 300,000 people at the low end.
Quote:
Go figure
You are correct, Greg and it's pathetic. I guess the complaining somehow makes them feel good about themselves.
Leftists like Chickasaw nation member and Republican Congressman Tom Cole? Who sent a letter to the NFL calling the team name a "racial slur"?
Link - ( New Window )
This isn't a liberal/conservative divide. Or it shouldn't be. I am as conservative as anyone here. But this is a simple equation. About 300,000 people who are Native Americans are offended by this and that is acknowledged even by those who want to keep the name.
A racist man who owned the team named the team the Redskins. We don't know his motivations but saying he did it to "honor" them is a lot more farfetched than saying he did it out of insensitivity. Personally, I don't think it mattered at the time. But we have evolved. It matters (or should matter) now. And it does matter to 300,000 people at the low end.
It's 5.4 million if you allow for having a "multi-race" Native American, and 2.9 million if that is the racial category alone.
This isn't a liberal/conservative divide. Or it shouldn't be. I am as conservative as anyone here. But this is a simple equation. About 300,000 people who are Native Americans are offended by this and that is acknowledged even by those who want to keep the name.
A racist man who owned the team named the team the Redskins. We don't know his motivations but saying he did it to "honor" them is a lot more farfetched than saying he did it out of insensitivity. Personally, I don't think it mattered at the time. But we have evolved. It matters (or should matter) now. And it does matter to 300,000 people at the low end.
Quote:
with a football teams name?
If even one Native American is offended it is one too many. We need to learn from our mistakes of the past. Why do we still show the old westerns on TV? Why was F-Troop allowed on TV. How could you allow Johnny Depp to play Tonto? Why hasn't Manhattan been returned?
All team names should be eliminated and replaced by colors.
The Blue
The Red
The Aquamarine
The Fuchsia
The Mauve
The Sandcastle White
The Lavender
The Salamander Brown
And the new expansion team, the Puce.
Quote:
In comment 12963417 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
with a football teams name?
If even one Native American is offended it is one too many. We need to learn from our mistakes of the past. Why do we still show the old westerns on TV? Why was F-Troop allowed on TV. How could you allow Johnny Depp to play Tonto? Why hasn't Manhattan been returned?
All team names should be eliminated and replaced by colors.
The Blue
The Red
The Aquamarine
The Fuchsia
The Mauve
The Sandcastle White
The Lavender
The Salamander Brown
And the new expansion team, the Puce.
Wouldn't this offend the colorblind?
"What the fuck is blue!!"
Quote:
In comment 12963497 Reale01 said:
Quote:
In comment 12963417 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
with a football teams name?
If even one Native American is offended it is one too many. We need to learn from our mistakes of the past. Why do we still show the old westerns on TV? Why was F-Troop allowed on TV. How could you allow Johnny Depp to play Tonto? Why hasn't Manhattan been returned?
All team names should be eliminated and replaced by colors.
The Blue
The Red
The Aquamarine
The Fuchsia
The Mauve
The Sandcastle White
The Lavender
The Salamander Brown
And the new expansion team, the Puce.
Wouldn't this offend the colorblind?
Actually, a team named The Puce should offend everyone.
Really, the only place scientific things can come from, is science.
Really, the only place scientific things can come from, is science.
Are you saying they should change the name to the Redskitonians?
I'm sure there's a segment of Native American's who are offended by the term, for a number of reasons whether politically driven or not, and there's also undoubtedly a segment who could give a flying fuck. Either way, the idea that some of the BBI elites squawk as if they're infinitely offended speaks to their need for attention and their need to elevate themselves as a group so overwhelmingly evolved. Gimme a break!
I'd go with Bloodthirsty Savages. Washington BS sounds about right.
Quote:
Really, the only place scientific things can come from, is science.
Are you saying they should change the name to the Redskitonians?
You raise sort of an interesting question...would it be acceptable to change it to something other than Redskins, so the word itself was not offensive but is structured to allude to the previous name? Redskittles or Redskitoninans or Red legs or something of that nature might be perceived as not changing enough. Conversely, would people be offended if they changed the name to something that had no relationship with Indians whatsoever? A lot of times people will go from offensive to related but benign, e.g.; Warriors. But if you named it something like "Fred" would people perceive that as being too dismissive?
The Jihadists?
Quote:
...The Terrorists? This way, every time something shitty happens in the world, Snyder's team will get blamed.
The Jihadists?
Works, too, but I like the broader application of the generic "Terrorists."
Quote:
...The Terrorists? This way, every time something shitty happens in the world, Snyder's team will get blamed.
Then they would win the Super Bowl every year. Every time we made a law or restriction or rule, the Terrorists would win.
Only the off-season Bowl, which they seem to win every year anyway.
Link - ( New Window )
it's a fucking sports name. why the fuck are we bringing attention to our shameful treatment of native americans. why the fuck would anyone be against changing the names other than Skins fans and Snyder?
Why is this a big deal? Look, I AGREE that nobody should be SOO OMG OFFENDED over this. Those people can be ridiculous and way over the top.
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
This is a sports team name, it should make no difference either way and shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is, and considering the way society is moving, the Redskins should just give it up and change the fucking name...they'll have to eventually.
But I hate how this is a flashpoint. The real flashpoint should be the Cleveland Indians Mascot. Fuck that mascot, that mascot is disgraceful and really should be put out pasture.
I don't know any Native Americans, but if there was a brown one for "Indians" (type of Indian as my heritage) i'd be fucking pissed.
And truth be told, if there was a team called the "Brownskins" referring to me, I'd be pretty pissed off also, regardless of whether it was previously a slur or not.
From my admittedly limited experiences with Russian nationals, I picture crew-cut men wearing track suits drinking from morning until whenever they pass out.
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
Basically what this comes down to is WHO started the movement to change the name? If it was a group of native Americans then perfect. If it was any other group of people who are not native American... then year it would be a PC Liberal agenda.
In general, I'm against being superficial, so intent should have some role, I think.
Quote:
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
Basically what this comes down to is WHO started the movement to change the name? If it was a group of native Americans then perfect. If it was any other group of people who are not native American... then year it would be a PC Liberal agenda.
Apparently, this has been an ongoing issue for Native Americans since the late 60s.
But as I always said. Washington is the far more offensive name. I would also add that it dies matter if non Indians are offended.
Quote:
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
Basically what this comes down to is WHO started the movement to change the name? If it was a group of native Americans then perfect. If it was any other group of people who are not native American... then year it would be a PC Liberal agenda.
You can't tell me that there are not native Americans that care. Clearly this is coming from them.
And even if it is a liberal agenda, it's not about the "bad" political correctness, it's about basic human correctness. Maybe we don't need to shit on the indigenous people we essentially wiped out. Is it really changing your way of life? Does this impact you so much?
How come people don't complain about the Seminoles or Blackhawks? Because at least those names come off as honorary.
But you know what--- say this was a movement started by white liberals (it wasn't)... SO. WHAT? How is it such a big deal that it's become a rallying cry for people to complain about the "stupid PC liberals".
I don't get why the Skins couldn't have handled the situation better and asked for some sort of name suggestions from Indian tribes about somethign that would retain both the Skins heritage of using a Native American name with a term that also honors the plight and bravery of Native American tribes as well.
Such a stupid thing to dig your heel in over.
I have recently made some posts about how despite the fact that I'm liberal, I've seen some college age kids go over the top (see the Black Lively thread).. but this is such a stupid hill for "conservatives" to die on (I guess if this is a liberal viewpoint, then the other sides are conservatives).
Well then, maybe they would be rooting for the skins to beat the cowboys !!
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
I have also saw other polls with differing numbers. This changes little to me. It was a Native American group who started the protest.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
Quote:
Go figure
I'm sure there's a segment of Native American's who are offended by the term, for a number of reasons whether politically driven or not, and there's also undoubtedly a segment who could give a flying fuck. Either way, the idea that some of the BBI elites squawk as if they're infinitely offended speaks to their need for attention and their need to elevate themselves as a group so overwhelmingly evolved. Gimme a break!
The "BBI Elite. What a fucking funny dogwhistle for northeast liberal elites.
I'm not "offended" but I think it'd be pretty fucking shitty if a team was called the Brownskins and named after Indian people (Indian as in India). I'm Indian so I'm using a little empathy here.
"Offense" isn't binary. Offended doesn't always mean that you hurt someone feelings... it can also mean that someone thinks youre being a total asshole.
In this case, the Redskins are just being total assholes.
Also can we drop this thinking that "you can't offend anyone these days, everyone is so offended".. its true in some circumstances, like with college kids, or with corporations who need to cater to the lowest common denominator (e.g. most offensiible people) solely for profits...
...but we also have a Republican Candidate who opened his campaign by declaring Mexican immigrants rapists, stokes hatred against Muslims, and is just generally suspicious of many groups (that's the nicest way I can put it).
He's getting applauded for offended people. Check the comment section under Yahoo news, Fox news, or Facebook, and let me know if you "cant offend anyone these days".
I was looking at a comment on fox News when the new Surgeon General was appointed, who happens to be Indian. Comments ranged from Muslim Obama ruining the country, they're taking it over from the inside, to "they all look the same through a scope".
This dude isn't even Muslim, he's hindu and Indian, but people can openly declare "they all look the same through a scope". People need to stop worrying about their right to offend people - its clearly in tact, you just may get called out for it depending on where you say it.
There are still activist groups that protest them, though they don't seem to get as much traction due to the official relationship between the tribal organization and the school.
yet the first line states:
"Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians."
I'm not a rocket scientist or anything, but when I do the math ...
Clearly sipping the lib kool-aid aren't we? Your evidence for any of this is where exactly? Huffington Post? LMAO
My concern is not really so much about the Redskins name per-se and this has nothing to do with whether I think the name is offensive to the american indians. It is about government stepping in and forcing a change where they really have no right. Today it is the redskins and tomorrow something else less visible/public.
Maybe someone can educate me on the legal side of this if my comment above was off base.
Clearly sipping the lib kool-aid aren't we? Your evidence for any of this is where exactly? Huffington Post? LMAO
My concern is not really so much about the Redskins name per-se and this has nothing to do with whether I think the name is offensive to the american indians. It is about government stepping in and forcing a change where they really have no right. Today it is the redskins and tomorrow something else less visible/public.
Maybe someone can educate me on the legal side of this if my comment above was off base.
There are still activist groups that protest them, though they don't seem to get as much traction due to the official relationship between the tribal organization and the school.
There are certain requirements that the Seminoles have in order for FSU to use the name - classes on Native American culture, etc.
Quote:
FSU is a bit different because the Seminole Tribe of Florida officially sanctions the use of the name. That's the only reason they're still the Seminoles, as opposed to the many schools that have changed their nickname. Same thing with the Utah Utes, Central Michigan Chippewas, and Catawba Indians.
There are still activist groups that protest them, though they don't seem to get as much traction due to the official relationship between the tribal organization and the school.
There are certain requirements that the Seminoles have in order for FSU to use the name - classes on Native American culture, etc.
I saw proof on the History Channel btw!
What if you were at work?
What if you were at work?
well if the earlier stat is correct in that 10% of native americans find it offensive, then your scenario would be if there was a party with 1000 people and one of them found it offensive would you use the term?
I saw proof on the History Channel btw!
1) Vikings were the ones terrorizing people in your post and are the ones with a team named after them, not the victims.
2) The name "Vikings" doesn't have anything to do with a racial skin tone asa slur. It's just the name of a group of people.
Again, Blackhawks, Seminoles... Your post sucks and is stupid.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
Quote:
is also highly offensive to other Europeans who's ancestors they terrorized for many years.
I saw proof on the History Channel btw!
You think you're being clever but all you are doing is showing how much you missed the point. Even in your shitty analogy and awful attempt at humor and making a point, you fail to realize that:
1) Vikings were the ones terrorizing people in your post and are the ones with a team named after them, not the victims.
2) The name "Vikings" doesn't have anything to do with a racial skin tone asa slur. It's just the name of a group of people.
Again, Blackhawks, Seminoles... Your post sucks and is stupid.
There are still activist groups that protest them, though they don't seem to get as much traction due to the official relationship between the tribal organization and the school.
It's not about having a Native American name, its about one construed as demeaning (again though, I think this is all dumb bullshit for people to get worked up over unless they're a Native American themselves, save for that disgusting Cleveland Indians logo which nobody should be proud of, but people inevitably are [those who think it's standing up to political correctness]).
Quote:
Go figure
I'm sure there's a segment of Native American's who are offended by the term, for a number of reasons whether politically driven or not, and there's also undoubtedly a segment who could give a flying fuck. Either way, the idea that some of the BBI elites squawk as if they're infinitely offended speaks to their need for attention and their need to elevate themselves as a group so overwhelmingly evolved. Gimme a break!
Call me crazy, I don't think it's the place of one ethnic group to be telling other ethnic groups what they should or should not be offended by.
Hold this L kid
Quote:
In comment 12963759 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
is also highly offensive to other Europeans who's ancestors they terrorized for many years.
I saw proof on the History Channel btw!
You think you're being clever but all you are doing is showing how much you missed the point. Even in your shitty analogy and awful attempt at humor and making a point, you fail to realize that:
1) Vikings were the ones terrorizing people in your post and are the ones with a team named after them, not the victims.
2) The name "Vikings" doesn't have anything to do with a racial skin tone asa slur. It's just the name of a group of people.
Again, Blackhawks, Seminoles... Your post sucks and is stupid.
It's a stereotype reflecting barbarism in a state with an above-average proportion of people of Scandinavian descent.
Vikings is what they're fucking called. Redskins is not a tribe name of a group of Native Americans.
False equivalency bullshit that's idiotic and only makes sense to people who are trying to prove that somehow Redskins is a perfectly fine name.
Quote:
If you were at a party and you knew 1 of 10 people thought the term 'Redskin' was offensive, would you use it?
What if you were at work?
well if the earlier stat is correct in that 10% of native americans find it offensive, then your scenario would be if there was a party with 1000 people and one of them found it offensive would you use the term?
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
I think this is probably the most feasible thing to believe. And while there may be a small noisy minority, is it really such a big deal to acquiesce to them within this particular context?
This is not my argument in favor of retaining Redskins because I don't care one iota in either direction about the name. However, it's fascinating to me how similar arguments can go in either direction because they are shaped by what the advocate himself supports or doesn't support.
Hold this L kid
No, I don't really give two shits about the name Redskins to be honest. You writing a really stupid fucking post and me being angry are mutually independent.
And no thanks, I stopped smoking blunts, I picked up a Pax for dry herb and have THC oil sticks. Highly recommend you try them.
Your post was fucking dumb and deserved to be called out as fucking dumb. If you write something insightful I'd have given you kudos for insight.
Find me a team called the crackers or honkies and I'll agree with you.
Quote:
If you were at a party and you knew 1 of 10 people thought the term 'Redskin' was offensive, would you use it?
What if you were at work?
well if the earlier stat is correct in that 10% of native americans find it offensive, then your scenario would be if there was a party with 1000 people and one of them found it offensive would you use the term?
That poll was directed solely at Native Americans. It did not poll the general public. I would guess that there is a segment of the population that finds it offensive just based on reaction from this site. Just for arguments sake, say it is 5% (I'd guess higher as Webster defines it as usually offensive). Would you feel comfortable using it in referring to a Native American?
Quote:
In comment 12963760 therealmf said:
Quote:
If you were at a party and you knew 1 of 10 people thought the term 'Redskin' was offensive, would you use it?
What if you were at work?
well if the earlier stat is correct in that 10% of native americans find it offensive, then your scenario would be if there was a party with 1000 people and one of them found it offensive would you use the term?
Chris, one percent of our population is American Indian. So, if just 10% of them are offended, then that would be one tenth of one percent... or one out of a thousand
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
I think this is probably the most feasible thing to believe. And while there may be a small noisy minority, is it really such a big deal to acquiesce to them within this particular context?
If you find that percentage to be the same as those who are offended by Harry Potter and magic in public schools, would you likewise feel that you should acquiesce?
This is not my argument in favor of retaining Redskins because I don't care one iota in either direction about the name. However, it's fascinating to me how similar arguments can go in either direction because they are shaped by what the advocate himself supports or doesn't support.
No, I would not. But that's why I said "in this particular context".
The US has pillaged these people and fucked them over for so long. Is it really any skin off our back (there's a scalp joke in there) to just change the name to something a little more palatable that's not based on their skin color?
Braves? Warriors? Whatever tribe was native to Washington? Something that could at least be *construed* as honorary?
Context matters and I specifically said "in this situation" to point out that it's not always the right move to acquiesce a vocal minority.
Clearly sipping the lib kool-aid aren't we? Your evidence for any of this is where exactly? Huffington Post? LMAO
Ever watch the news or, perhaps, listen to Trumps speeches or, perhaps, be aware of anything at all?
What a winner he is!
Quote:
In comment 12963770 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 12963760 therealmf said:
Quote:
If you were at a party and you knew 1 of 10 people thought the term 'Redskin' was offensive, would you use it?
What if you were at work?
well if the earlier stat is correct in that 10% of native americans find it offensive, then your scenario would be if there was a party with 1000 people and one of them found it offensive would you use the term?
Chris, one percent of our population is American Indian. So, if just 10% of them are offended, then that would be one tenth of one percent... or one out of a thousand
Do you commonly use the 'N' word when there are no blacks around? Non American Indians can find the term offensive.
Another stupid post. Did you just learn these terms today on urban dictionary or something? If colleges are notorious for having "safe spaces", how would you conclude that "SJWs and safe spaces don't have the internet".
I don't give a fuck about SJWs or safe spaces, I give a fuck about human decency.
I just made a scalping joke in jest in my previous post, but yeah, sjw/safespace/libtard/<insert buzzword here>
Wanna hear a joke? What time is it in India.... 7:11 on the dot. There ya go, such an SJW sheltered safe space libtard that I have no problem cracking jokes about my own heritage.
Quote:
In comment 12963781 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
I think this is probably the most feasible thing to believe. And while there may be a small noisy minority, is it really such a big deal to acquiesce to them within this particular context?
If you find that percentage to be the same as those who are offended by Harry Potter and magic in public schools, would you likewise feel that you should acquiesce?
This is not my argument in favor of retaining Redskins because I don't care one iota in either direction about the name. However, it's fascinating to me how similar arguments can go in either direction because they are shaped by what the advocate himself supports or doesn't support.
No, I would not. But that's why I said "in this particular context".
The US has pillaged these people and fucked them over for so long. Is it really any skin off our back (there's a scalp joke in there) to just change the name to something a little more palatable that's not based on their skin color?
Braves? Warriors? Whatever tribe was native to Washington? Something that could at least be *construed* as honorary?
Context matters and I specifically said "in this situation" to point out that it's not always the right move to acquiesce a vocal minority.
Quote:
I didn't know they let SJWs use the internet within a Safe Space?
Another stupid post. Did you just learn these terms today on urban dictionary or something? If colleges are notorious for having "safe spaces", how would you conclude that "SJWs and safe spaces don't have the internet".
I don't give a fuck about SJWs or safe spaces, I give a fuck about human decency.
I just made a scalping joke in jest in my previous post, but yeah, sjw/safespace/libtard/<insert buzzword here>
Wanna hear a joke? What time is it in India.... 7:11 on the dot. There ya go, such an SJW sheltered safe space libtard that I have no problem cracking jokes about my own heritage.
What a winner he is!
It's a false equivalency and it's trash.
The name Redskin doesn't even offend me. But it's cool, keep using millenial buzzwords you learned last week. I'd much rather be exaggerated into that bucket than in the other direction.
Quote:
In comment 12963759 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
is also highly offensive to other Europeans who's ancestors they terrorized for many years.
I saw proof on the History Channel btw!
You think you're being clever but all you are doing is showing how much you missed the point. Even in your shitty analogy and awful attempt at humor and making a point, you fail to realize that:
1) Vikings were the ones terrorizing people in your post and are the ones with a team named after them, not the victims.
2) The name "Vikings" doesn't have anything to do with a racial skin tone asa slur. It's just the name of a group of people.
Again, Blackhawks, Seminoles... Your post sucks and is stupid.
It's a stereotype reflecting barbarism in a state with an above-average proportion of people of Scandinavian descent.
You would be well advised to some extensive reading on Norse and Danish cultures, of which the Vikings were actually a small part and who, for their time, were certainly no more barbaric than anyone else. In fact, they established trade with most of the known world at the time and are the namesakes for Russia (i.e., the "Rus").
Quote:
In comment 12963803 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
I didn't know they let SJWs use the internet within a Safe Space?
Another stupid post. Did you just learn these terms today on urban dictionary or something? If colleges are notorious for having "safe spaces", how would you conclude that "SJWs and safe spaces don't have the internet".
I don't give a fuck about SJWs or safe spaces, I give a fuck about human decency.
I just made a scalping joke in jest in my previous post, but yeah, sjw/safespace/libtard/<insert buzzword here>
Wanna hear a joke? What time is it in India.... 7:11 on the dot. There ya go, such an SJW sheltered safe space libtard that I have no problem cracking jokes about my own heritage.
But wouldn't that joke be on someone of a different gender?
Find it yourself, jerky. Try using Google, if you know what that is.
Quote:
In comment 12963777 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12963759 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
is also highly offensive to other Europeans who's ancestors they terrorized for many years.
I saw proof on the History Channel btw!
You think you're being clever but all you are doing is showing how much you missed the point. Even in your shitty analogy and awful attempt at humor and making a point, you fail to realize that:
1) Vikings were the ones terrorizing people in your post and are the ones with a team named after them, not the victims.
2) The name "Vikings" doesn't have anything to do with a racial skin tone asa slur. It's just the name of a group of people.
Again, Blackhawks, Seminoles... Your post sucks and is stupid.
It's a stereotype reflecting barbarism in a state with an above-average proportion of people of Scandinavian descent.
You would be well advised to some extensive reading on Norse and Danish cultures, of which the Vikings were actually a small part and who, for their time, were certainly no more barbaric than anyone else. In fact, they established trade with most of the known world at the time and are the namesakes for Russia (i.e., the "Rus").
How else are poor brown people oppressed by the evil white man.
Tell us!
Quote:
In comment 12963815 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12963803 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
I didn't know they let SJWs use the internet within a Safe Space?
Another stupid post. Did you just learn these terms today on urban dictionary or something? If colleges are notorious for having "safe spaces", how would you conclude that "SJWs and safe spaces don't have the internet".
I don't give a fuck about SJWs or safe spaces, I give a fuck about human decency.
I just made a scalping joke in jest in my previous post, but yeah, sjw/safespace/libtard/<insert buzzword here>
Wanna hear a joke? What time is it in India.... 7:11 on the dot. There ya go, such an SJW sheltered safe space libtard that I have no problem cracking jokes about my own heritage.
But wouldn't that joke be on someone of a different gender?
Gender. Not sure what you mean. I chose that joke because I myself am an Indian-American, if you count my families heritage (like India the country...I was born/raised in NJ though and my mom was born/raised in Staten Island)
I am not interested in any discussion of Trump himself. All I am saying is this:
1) It is not debatable that what he said "offended" people
2) He is a Presidential Candidate
3) Therefore, the notion that "you can't offend anyone anymore" is bullshit.
That's the complete line of thinking with Trump, I am not talking about his platform. I am simply saying that he has said things which other people will find offensive (not saying I do or don't), and considering his current position in politics, it's proof that yes, you can still say offensive things.
Quote:
In comment 12963786 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12963777 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12963759 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
is also highly offensive to other Europeans who's ancestors they terrorized for many years.
I saw proof on the History Channel btw!
You think you're being clever but all you are doing is showing how much you missed the point. Even in your shitty analogy and awful attempt at humor and making a point, you fail to realize that:
1) Vikings were the ones terrorizing people in your post and are the ones with a team named after them, not the victims.
2) The name "Vikings" doesn't have anything to do with a racial skin tone asa slur. It's just the name of a group of people.
Again, Blackhawks, Seminoles... Your post sucks and is stupid.
It's a stereotype reflecting barbarism in a state with an above-average proportion of people of Scandinavian descent.
You would be well advised to some extensive reading on Norse and Danish cultures, of which the Vikings were actually a small part and who, for their time, were certainly no more barbaric than anyone else. In fact, they established trade with most of the known world at the time and are the namesakes for Russia (i.e., the "Rus").
SO you're saying that the image that comes foremost to your mind when hearing the word "Viking" is shopkeeper?
Lord you ARE dim.
What's more important, the quality of life of the vast majority of your own people and neighbors, or a freaking nickname?
How else are poor brown people oppressed by the evil white man.
Tell us!
Quote:
give me specific evidence where he promoted hatred against Muslims........I'll wait.
Find it yourself, jerky. Try using Google, if you know what that is.
Funny how some old twat is telling me about Google. All you do is cry like a little bitch and pretend you know everything. I ask again smarty where's you evidence?
If you got none, go fuck off!
Quote:
c'mon libby what else you got?
How else are poor brown people oppressed by the evil white man.
Tell us!
dude, you suck at this, give it up
Says the guy who writes an essay to disprove a sarcastic comment. You need to go outside little boy.
Clearly sipping the lib kool-aid aren't we? Your evidence for any of this is where exactly? Huffington Post? LMAO
You need sources for this?
That's not Huffington Post trash, that's his fucking platform. And I'm not even commenting on my political views of his platform, all I'm saying is that if you can bulid a platform based on things that a subset of America will find offensive, I can't buy that "you can't offend anyone these days"
I just find it amusing since the Scandinavian countries have been so pacifist for so long, yet what their history is most renowned for in the popular conception is war and pillage.
You Win!
What's more important, the quality of life of the vast majority of your own people and neighbors, or a freaking nickname?
Having said that, I totally agree that this whole thing is really irrelevant and shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is.
I also don't understand why the name "Redskins" has become a bigger deal than Chief Wahoo or whatever the Indians mascot is. THAT truly signals to me that there are background forces deciding what's an issue and who is a target TO AN EXTENT... I'm not naive.
Quote:
In comment 12963835 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
c'mon libby what else you got?
How else are poor brown people oppressed by the evil white man.
Tell us!
dude, you suck at this, give it up
Says the guy who writes an essay to disprove a sarcastic comment. You need to go outside little boy.
Writing an essay and explaining why your false equivalency is a flaming pile of shit isn't the same as trolling.
You're trolling and you suck at it. You're trying to get under my skin and get me angry, but you're failing miserably at it dude lol. So again, you suck at this. I'm 27 and grew up with the internet, you need to do better than that to make an impact lol. SJW/libtard/safe space/trigger blah blah blah, you're talking about things I find stupid as well, so again, try harder or find some other avenue.
Lord you ARE dim.
Quote:
In comment 12963849 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12963835 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
c'mon libby what else you got?
How else are poor brown people oppressed by the evil white man.
Tell us!
dude, you suck at this, give it up
Says the guy who writes an essay to disprove a sarcastic comment. You need to go outside little boy.
Wow, you really cut me deep with that one.
Writing an essay and explaining why your false equivalency is a flaming pile of shit isn't the same as trolling.
You're trolling and you suck at it. You're trying to get under my skin and get me angry, but you're failing miserably at it dude lol. So again, you suck at this. I'm 27 and grew up with the internet, you need to do better than that to make an impact lol. SJW/libtard/safe space/trigger blah blah blah, you're talking about things I find stupid as well, so again, try harder or find some other avenue.
Ah another great essay, obviously I AM getting under your skin. You just can't help but respond can you?
You Win!
JFC, I already said I didn't bring up Trump to debate his platforms or policy proposals. First of all, I'm right and you're wrong, but that's irrelevant to point I'm trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is this: no matter how you think his comments were meant to be construed, there are people out there who were offended, and yet, he is the Republican frontrunner, so therefore, the idea that "you can't offend people anymore" is a fallacy.
Although I don't know why I'm trying to have a conversation with you when you're just interested in trolling. I swear, sometimes when my ADD medication kicks in I get sidetracked on reddit or BBI instead of being productive with my work, lol. Can't believe I sank 15 minutes into speaking with someone as trollish as you. I gotta learn one of these days
I just find it amusing since the Scandinavian countries have been so pacifist for so long, yet what their history is most renowned for in the popular conception is war and pillage.
Could you imagine if the Vikings saw what is happening to Sweden right now?
I just find it amusing since the Scandinavian countries have been so pacifist for so long, yet what their history is most renowned for in the popular conception is war and pillage.
Quote:
Misquoting + projection = Lib logic
You Win!
JFC, I already said I didn't bring up Trump to debate his platforms or policy proposals. First of all, I'm right and you're wrong, but that's irrelevant to point I'm trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is this: no matter how you think his comments were meant to be construed, there are people out there who were offended, and yet, he is the Republican frontrunner, so therefore, the idea that "you can't offend people anymore" is a fallacy.
Although I don't know why I'm trying to have a conversation with you when you're just interested in trolling. I swear, sometimes when my ADD medication kicks in I get sidetracked on reddit or BBI instead of being productive with my work, lol. Can't believe I sank 15 minutes into speaking with someone as trollish as you. I gotta learn one of these days
I'm not reading all this....
Quote:
In comment 12963859 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
In comment 12963849 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12963835 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
c'mon libby what else you got?
How else are poor brown people oppressed by the evil white man.
Tell us!
dude, you suck at this, give it up
Says the guy who writes an essay to disprove a sarcastic comment. You need to go outside little boy.
Wow, you really cut me deep with that one.
Writing an essay and explaining why your false equivalency is a flaming pile of shit isn't the same as trolling.
You're trolling and you suck at it. You're trying to get under my skin and get me angry, but you're failing miserably at it dude lol. So again, you suck at this. I'm 27 and grew up with the internet, you need to do better than that to make an impact lol. SJW/libtard/safe space/trigger blah blah blah, you're talking about things I find stupid as well, so again, try harder or find some other avenue.
Ah another great essay, obviously I AM getting under your skin. You just can't help but respond can you?
?? no, you aren't. It's just fun to poke holes in terrible arguments on the internet. You're really just making yourself look like an idiot... calling me a "lib" or "SJW" isn't really that insulting dude. It's like it's your first day on the internet.
Quote:
Misquoting + projection = Lib logic
You Win!
JFC, I already said I didn't bring up Trump to debate his platforms or policy proposals. First of all, I'm right and you're wrong, but that's irrelevant to point I'm trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is this: no matter how you think his comments were meant to be construed, there are people out there who were offended, and yet, he is the Republican frontrunner, so therefore, the idea that "you can't offend people anymore" is a fallacy.
Although I don't know why I'm trying to have a conversation with you when you're just interested in trolling. I swear, sometimes when my ADD medication kicks in I get sidetracked on reddit or BBI instead of being productive with my work, lol. Can't believe I sank 15 minutes into speaking with someone as trollish as you. I gotta learn one of these days
I don't think reading or comprehension are a strong suit.
“I truly believe that it’s a generational thing where someone decided they were going to be offended today,”
“The people who are against this have come from a generation that is against everything. I think they are the people that say, ‘Let’s pick on this today.’ ”
Greivance/victimhood industry will always be busy, looking for work.
Quote:
In comment 12963870 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
Misquoting + projection = Lib logic
You Win!
JFC, I already said I didn't bring up Trump to debate his platforms or policy proposals. First of all, I'm right and you're wrong, but that's irrelevant to point I'm trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is this: no matter how you think his comments were meant to be construed, there are people out there who were offended, and yet, he is the Republican frontrunner, so therefore, the idea that "you can't offend people anymore" is a fallacy.
Although I don't know why I'm trying to have a conversation with you when you're just interested in trolling. I swear, sometimes when my ADD medication kicks in I get sidetracked on reddit or BBI instead of being productive with my work, lol. Can't believe I sank 15 minutes into speaking with someone as trollish as you. I gotta learn one of these days
I'm not reading all this....
Quote:
Lord you ARE dim.
Quite possibly. But that doesn't change the point that you're ignoring the connotation. Using the term, whether for a football team or anything else, is meant to conjure an image and not one of trader.
Go back to Greg's last post. The point I made flew so far over your head that you never even detected it. How you came to the conclusion you did is incomprehensible.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
What's more important, the quality of life of the vast majority of your own people and neighbors, or a freaking nickname?
LOL! And there it is. Took longer than I thought it would actually. The old 'Well, look at what they're doing to themselves!' misdirection play. It happens in every conversation with regards to racial issues where minorities are being treated unfairly.
Very well said Sonic. That's what's funny... some want the right to be able to offend whomever they want... but not have to deal with whatever backlash may come of it. Life usually doesn't work like that.
[quote]
Sonic, ignore the braying jackass. All he wants is the attention he isn't getting anywhere else.
Quote:
In comment 12963845 BMac said:
Quote:
Lord you ARE dim.
Quite possibly. But that doesn't change the point that you're ignoring the connotation. Using the term, whether for a football team or anything else, is meant to conjure an image and not one of trader.
Go back to Greg's last post. The point I made flew so far over your head that you never even detected it. How you came to the conclusion you did is incomprehensible.
Quote:
In comment 12963870 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
Misquoting + projection = Lib logic
You Win!
JFC, I already said I didn't bring up Trump to debate his platforms or policy proposals. First of all, I'm right and you're wrong, but that's irrelevant to point I'm trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is this: no matter how you think his comments were meant to be construed, there are people out there who were offended, and yet, he is the Republican frontrunner, so therefore, the idea that "you can't offend people anymore" is a fallacy.
Although I don't know why I'm trying to have a conversation with you when you're just interested in trolling. I swear, sometimes when my ADD medication kicks in I get sidetracked on reddit or BBI instead of being productive with my work, lol. Can't believe I sank 15 minutes into speaking with someone as trollish as you. I gotta learn one of these days
IMO, you shouldn't have brought it up at all. It's not relevant to this conversation and it is also prohibited by the rules of this forum.
Again, to be clear, no judgement in this post about his policies or statements themselves. I definitely should not have mentioned specific comments but left it in vaguer or more ambigious terms, so I apologize if it looked like I was inviting a political discussion.
Quote:
In comment 12963879 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12963845 BMac said:
Quote:
Lord you ARE dim.
Quite possibly. But that doesn't change the point that you're ignoring the connotation. Using the term, whether for a football team or anything else, is meant to conjure an image and not one of trader.
Go back to Greg's last post. The point I made flew so far over your head that you never even detected it. How you came to the conclusion you did is incomprehensible.
I understand that the name may not match up with the perception or may not apply to most Scandinavians even at that point in history, if that's your point.
You are one obtuse man, but you are probably playing an angle with your ignorance.
FWIW, he personally thinks the name is fine, although he acknowledges that there are some Indians who disagree. In case you're wondering, I use the term American Indian because both of the friends I've had who were of a tribe (this friend and another who is a Lipan Apache) preferred American Indian to Native American, although both preferred to be known as their own tribe rather than lumped into a mass category of all Indians. As one said, Apaches are no more like Comanche or Sioux than French are Germans.
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
I 'm curious as to why you feel you have to "interpret" in the worst way possible, what a Navajo has said?
It's titled, "The Edge of the World: How the North Sea Made Us Who We Are," by Michael Pye.
Where did this come from?
Quote:
they went to their expensive liberal arts school
Where did this come from?
Quote:
In comment 12963821 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12963815 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 12963803 LeonofKiev said:
Quote:
I didn't know they let SJWs use the internet within a Safe Space?
Another stupid post. Did you just learn these terms today on urban dictionary or something? If colleges are notorious for having "safe spaces", how would you conclude that "SJWs and safe spaces don't have the internet".
I don't give a fuck about SJWs or safe spaces, I give a fuck about human decency.
I just made a scalping joke in jest in my previous post, but yeah, sjw/safespace/libtard/<insert buzzword here>
Wanna hear a joke? What time is it in India.... 7:11 on the dot. There ya go, such an SJW sheltered safe space libtard that I have no problem cracking jokes about my own heritage.
But wouldn't that joke be on someone of a different gender?
Gender. Not sure what you mean. I chose that joke because I myself am an Indian-American, if you count my families heritage (like India the country...I was born/raised in NJ though and my mom was born/raised in Staten Island)
But don't only women wear a bindi (if that's the correct word usage)? So, it's not really a joke about you.
youre correct about the bindi but mistaken overall. there are 2 dots. a bindi is more ornamental and flashy, and worn by womenas an engagement ring. the red dots that are actually a powder are used in Hindu ceremonies and go on both genders. It's really cool that you knew the name of a bindi lol. Fun fact: the same word also means "okra" in hindi
Guess I must have been reflexively ignoring him in the past. OOPS! I used a word that I must have learned at my expensive liberal arts school!
I'll take whatever I can get as far as info on Indian culture, though. I'm not overly familiar with it, but our neck of the woods has a large Indian population and both of my kids have several friends from Indian families.
Day is done,
Gone the sun,
From the lake,
From the hill,
From the sky.
All is well,
Safely rest,
God is nigh
Zebrka : 2:51 pm : link : reply
why change it now? I'm 76 years old and you woulda been laughed at for mentioning this in my day
This is why I keep asking my boss to install a second water fountain at the office! You get me, Zebrka. Let's go back.
LOL! Well you're getting laughed at today.
Wait - a talking college? Now that's the shit.
Greg my bad lol I was typing that post on the subway and rushing.
The word bindi is both the word for the dot and okra.
Honestly though, I'm not as in tune or familiar with my indian heritage as I should be, I'm probably a pretty awful resource
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
I 'm curious as to why you feel you have to "interpret" in the worst way possible, what a Navajo has said?
I don't know what you mean by "in the worst way possible". But let me see if I can satisfy your curiosity... I wasn't interpreting what a Navajo said. I was interpreting what his friend said he said about what he thinks most Indians he knows think about the subject. In order for that statement to have any meaning or relevance, I'd say that a fair amount of interpretation is warranted. And the bulk of my interpretation is based on the poster's own words: "Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities."
You see? I hear that as: How you (White people) choose to define us, doesn't define us, it defines you. And besides, we have other things to worry about.
Lol where the fuck did you get that idea? Idk, maybe greg would just like to learn a ltitle about the cultures of some of his kids parents?
in a class in 2013 im like what did you learn today and she said "we discussed the n word" and im like what the fuck? im aying for this fucking bullshit
Today's mystery.
I mean, I went to school for Electrical engineering, while my wife went to school for Business Management. Back in your day, the girls had to go to women's colleges, people wore suits to go to class, and the blacks were the janitors.
I don't even know where the Indians were. Probably smoking a peace pipe.
76 years old and still a moron. Your colleges sucked.
When the fuck did education become a negative? It's funny, because considering the fact you ostensibly didn't go to college, and couplEd with how stupid your posts are, you're unknowingly a fantastic example of WHY someone should go to college so do they don't the way you do at 76
the babies of today at 23 graduate school with nothing important learned, did you know womens studies is a major? what the fuck can they do with that....keep sending your kids to college thats what they want you to think youre learning something and you're considered "smart!!"
Too funny!
in a class in 2013 im like what did you learn today and she said "we discussed the n word" and im like what the fuck? im aying for this fucking bullshit
That post crossed the stupidity level into possible troll territory. Not sure of he's a real poster
It's a beautiful thing man... a beautiful thing....
Please, no one buys that a slug like yourself actually procreates. You're some lowlife living in mom's basement. The only children you've had were the ones you jerked off into a tissue with.
In comment 12963423 kicker said:
Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...
If the sample is random, 500 is plenty big enough to draw a rough conclusion.
In comment 12963423 kicker said:
Quote:
That's LESS than one-hundredth of one percent.
Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...
If the sample is random, 500 is plenty big enough to draw a rough conclusion.
No; no it's not. Highly unlikely that the sample distribution is the same as the population distribution, namely because they relied on whomever answered the phone. That, by itself, skews randomization, and makes the probability that the distributions converge near 0.
Randomization is necessary, but not sufficient for, a causal interpretation.
I think if they want to fuck his ass they're called homosexuals. NTTIAWWT
I got that feeling too.
Man. I feel almost 76 now....
[quote]
Sonic, ignore the braying jackass. All he wants is the attention he isn't getting anywhere else.
I second this statement.
Quote:
Renaissance fair. Mostly because I picture the whole country either dressed to the 9s or in a black t-shirt and jeans.
From my admittedly limited experiences with Russian nationals, I picture crew-cut men wearing track suits drinking from morning until whenever they pass out.
That too. It bridges the gap.
So do the Russians do war re-enactments? Are there Russian furries?
I was. A little. Greg did it for me with his mentioning borscht.
And she said, "No. New Jersey Ho."
If indeed he's from Kiev, then he's Ukrainian.
Whaaaaat?!
Quote:
RE: 504 people sampled. So, this means pretty much dog squat
In comment 12963423 kicker said:
Quote:
That's LESS than one-hundredth of one percent.
Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...
If the sample is random, 500 is plenty big enough to draw a rough conclusion.
No; no it's not. Highly unlikely that the sample distribution is the same as the population distribution, namely because they relied on whomever answered the phone. That, by itself, skews randomization, and makes the probability that the distributions converge near 0.
Randomization is necessary, but not sufficient for, a causal interpretation.
It was also done by telephone (at the bottom of the link provided), maybe Congress was also doing some
fundraising too. Yep, they have to do that these days,
but I am using a sarcasm font, as in joke.
They live in Ukraine, therefore I regard them as Ukrainian (but I get your point). What I'd like to know is how Leon pronounces Kiev.
Quote:
In comment 12963902 Mark C said:
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
I 'm curious as to why you feel you have to "interpret" in the worst way possible, what a Navajo has said?
I don't know what you mean by "in the worst way possible". But let me see if I can satisfy your curiosity... I wasn't interpreting what a Navajo said. I was interpreting what his friend said he said about what he thinks most Indians he knows think about the subject. In order for that statement to have any meaning or relevance, I'd say that a fair amount of interpretation is warranted. And the bulk of my interpretation is based on the poster's own words: "Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities."
You see? I hear that as: How you (White people) choose to define us, doesn't define us, it defines you. And besides, we have other things to worry about.
I don't want to split hairs and I don't think I am here. I want you to realize why I asked the question. What you originally said was:
"The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them."
Although now you are saying you were interpreting the poster's version of what the Navajo said that's not what you originally wrote.
I asked about you interpreted in "the worst way possible" because your interpretation leads you to conclude that the Navajo indicated that "it's your problem" and 'given how you've screwed us in the past we'll be watching how you handle this.' I don't see anything of the sort.
You say there's a need for interpretation. I say the Navajo's words are crystal clear; both he and his friends just don't care. Yeah he also says they have bigger problems but there's no indication from the poster that the Navajo blames those problems on white people.
The point that the sample size is very small must have sailed over your head.
Quote:
white Liberals are. So of course, let's force everyone else to comply with the the white liberals.
The point that the sample size is very small must have sailed over your head.
Obviously you know nothing about polling or statistics.
EVERY major poll is based on a small sample size. It's not the Census.
Guess I should be 0.25 X 0.10 = 0.0250 offended. The whole thing is silly.
I remember when Stanford University dropped the Stanford Indians name in favor of the Stanford Cardinal (but their logo is a Sequia Tree). I never understood that one.
If you want to talk offensive, remember the Cleveland Indians "Chief Knock-A-Homa. Even that - that was just plain stupid.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
Do you need a survey to answer what is 2 + 2? There is a difference in scientific fact and what a population of humans think.
Regardless is 10% not worthy of consideration? What percentage do you require?
And bringing in global warming into the discussion does nothing for it. It's just another thing you'd bring into the discussion to derail it. As if it is on any rails at the moment.
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
Do you need a survey to answer what is 2 + 2? There is a difference in scientific fact and what a population of humans think.
Regardless is 10% not worthy of consideration? What percentage do you require?
And bringing in global warming into the discussion does nothing for it. It's just another thing you'd bring into the discussion to derail it. As if it is on any rails at the moment.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
What fucking idiocy. Can someone link how you block people here please?
HideAPoster Extension - ( New Window )
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
I'm doing a poll. How many hours per day do you spend listening to RW talk radio?
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
I'm doing a poll. How many hours per day do you spend listening to RW talk radio?
He's either a liar or a deluded fool. Ignore him and he'll fade away (I know, it's difficult).
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
It is not. With all respect, you just believe what you are endlessly spoon-fed. We first started hearing this 97% nonsense after the "poll" referenced below. This passage is from a WSJ article 5/27/14.
"Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
The below link is to a laundry list of pieces debunking this myth.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12964224 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
I'm doing a poll. How many hours per day do you spend listening to RW talk radio?
He's either a liar or a deluded fool. Ignore him and he'll fade away (I know, it's difficult).
Smarten up, pal. This fool like facts.
But you care to know how many hours I spend listening to RW talk radio. That's just you.
He's George Zimmerman's personal cheerleader. I think it's pretty obvious how much he listens to RW radio.
The two most obvious things come to mind:
1 - Liberals will invariably need to bring up Rush or Fox News, etc. Never fails. People like me are incapable of original thought or doing anything but regurgitating Rush.
2 - The personal attacks and name-calling are a given too.
Quote:
In comment 12964224 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
It is not. With all respect, you just believe what you are endlessly spoon-fed. We first started hearing this 97% nonsense after the "poll" referenced below. This passage is from a WSJ article 5/27/14.
"Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
The below link is to a laundry list of pieces debunking this myth. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
how listening to Rush, etc 8 hours a day impacts the average moron
The two most obvious things come to mind:
1 - Liberals will invariably need to bring up Rush or Fox News, etc. Never fails. People like me are incapable of original thought or doing anything but regurgitating Rush.
2 - The personal attacks and name-calling are a given too.
Must have a bustling career to be able to keep coming back to these threads and troll away.
Exactly.
Can be said about a lot of things/people in society.
Quote:
In comment 12964269 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12964224 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
It is not. With all respect, you just believe what you are endlessly spoon-fed. We first started hearing this 97% nonsense after the "poll" referenced below. This passage is from a WSJ article 5/27/14.
"Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
The below link is to a laundry list of pieces debunking this myth. Link - ( New Window )
I have a lot of issues with the politics of climate change, but even so, you have to see that there is a difference between a polls people answering a science question based on their expertise, as opposed to a poll of people answering on the basis of their emotions.
I agree with you. Emotions ought not play into it.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
how listening to Rush, etc 8 hours a day impacts the average moron
The two most obvious things come to mind:
1 - Liberals will invariably need to bring up Rush or Fox News, etc. Never fails. People like me are incapable of original thought or doing anything but regurgitating Rush.
2 - The personal attacks and name-calling are a given too.
I'm not sure about original thought but those programs reinforce existing biases and prejudices. They make a fortune preaching to choir.
Those calculations have some wonderful assumptions hidden in them; namely, that the underlying population follows some pretty restrictive assumptions (asymptotically normal, stable variance, independence, etc.). It also requires an a priori knowledge of the standard deviation of the population in response to the question. How can you figure out the mean of the answer before the question has been posed?
It's pretty bad; in fact, do you know where the underlying calculation of it came from?
Another fun fact; if you put in a different standard deviation, you can get an adequate sample size of 7! Who needs 504; we only need 7.
It's a bad calculation, and bad statistics.
Since a lot of people won't do it, here is the basis for the calculation.
Quote:
The estimator of a proportion is \hat p = X/n, where X is the number of 'positive' observations (e.g. the number of people out of the n sampled people who are at least 65 years old). When the observations are independent, this estimator has a (scaled) binomial distribution (and is also the sample mean of data from a Bernoulli distribution). The maximum variance of this distribution is 0.25/n, which occurs when the true parameter is p = 0.5. In practice, since p is unknown, the maximum variance is often used for sample size assessments.
For sufficiently large n, the distribution of \hat{p} will be closely approximated by a normal distribution.[1] Using this approximation, it can be shown that around 95% of this distribution's probability lies within 2 standard deviations of the mean. Using the Wald method for the binomial distribution, an interval of the form
(\hat p -2\sqrt{0.25/n}, \hat p +2\sqrt{0.25/n})
will form a 95% confidence interval for the true proportion. If this interval needs to be no more than W units wide, the equation
4\sqrt{0.25/n} = W
can be solved for n, yielding[2][3] n = 4/W2 = 1/B2 where B is the error bound on the estimate, i.e., the estimate is usually given as within ± B. So, for B = 10% one requires n = 100, for B = 5% one needs n = 400, for B = 3% the requirement approximates to n = 1000, while for B = 1% a sample size of n = 10000 is required. These numbers are quoted often in news reports of opinion polls and other sample surveys.
You lost me at \hat, which I mistakenly thought was an abbreviation for "backwards asshat"
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
I think this is probably the most feasible thing to believe. And while there may be a small noisy minority, is it really such a big deal to acquiesce to them within this particular context?
If you find that percentage to be the same as those who are offended by Harry Potter and magic in public schools, would you likewise feel that you should acquiesce?
This is not my argument in favor of retaining Redskins because I don't care one iota in either direction about the name. However, it's fascinating to me how similar arguments can go in either direction because they are shaped by what the advocate himself supports or doesn't support.
Your comparison is non valid based on the fact one of the offended party is dealing with actual racial heritage, the other with religious beliefs. It is a non-starter at that point
Asked before and unanswered. Probably because if that figure is reached they'll have to accept something.
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Quote:
In comment 12963939 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12963902 Mark C said:
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
I 'm curious as to why you feel you have to "interpret" in the worst way possible, what a Navajo has said?
I don't know what you mean by "in the worst way possible". But let me see if I can satisfy your curiosity... I wasn't interpreting what a Navajo said. I was interpreting what his friend said he said about what he thinks most Indians he knows think about the subject. In order for that statement to have any meaning or relevance, I'd say that a fair amount of interpretation is warranted. And the bulk of my interpretation is based on the poster's own words: "Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities."
You see? I hear that as: How you (White people) choose to define us, doesn't define us, it defines you. And besides, we have other things to worry about.
I don't want to split hairs and I don't think I am here. I want you to realize why I asked the question. What you originally said was:
"The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them."
Although now you are saying you were interpreting the poster's version of what the Navajo said that's not what you originally wrote.
I asked about you interpreted in "the worst way possible" because your interpretation leads you to conclude that the Navajo indicated that "it's your problem" and 'given how you've screwed us in the past we'll be watching how you handle this.' I don't see anything of the sort.
You say there's a need for interpretation. I say the Navajo's words are crystal clear; both he and his friends just don't care. Yeah he also says they have bigger problems but there's no indication from the poster that the Navajo blames those problems on white people.
Couple of things: First, I'm quite comfortable with the prospect that you and I will continue to disagree on the essential points here, and I don't disrespect your opinion, so don't think I'm trying to convince you of my position. However, you mischaracterize much of what I've said. For example, in my original post, I said "The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is...", but I phrased it that way for brevity's sake, assuming that the fact that these weren't actually the words of the Navajo person was obvious.
Second, I never said that the indication from the Navajo person was that most Indians blame their problems on White people. But it would be asinine to even engage this discussion about the Washington team name without acknowledging its context, namely, that White civilization on this continent engaged in genocide and the destruction of Indian cultures. Therefore, I acknowledged that we've done many more fucked up things to Indians than naming sports teams after slurs used to describe them (you incorrectly had me putting those words in the Navajo person's mouth). So, in that context, MY conclusion is that Indians, by and large, probably see the Washington team name as a problem that affects White people more than it affects them at this point.
I further conclude that using Indian apathy on this matter as some kind of proof that it's okay to use a racial slur against them is wrong. The poll itself is irrelevant; in my opinion, it is simply a tool being used to entrench bigotry. It doesn't matter what most of the Indian people think about this. (Incidentally, if it did matter, then why is it okay to offend ten percent of the Indian people?) What matters is that a growing number of people in general are disgusted by the fact that it's 2016, and we are still using a racial slur and calling it okay. To me, your desire to just take this third-hand anecdotal statement at face value is taking the easy way out.
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
OK then what number 30%, 40% what is the magic number?
It might be a regional thing, not many people care about the Redskins out here that I am aware of. They are mostly Cowboy fans.
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
Quote:
In comment 12964441 steve in ky said:
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
I'm simply saying that the moment it was demonstrated to me that 2/3's were genuinely offended and thought it was a slur I'd be in favor of changing it too.
My guess is, as has been suggested, that the vast majority could care less.
Quote:
In comment 12964479 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12964441 steve in ky said:
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
I'm simply saying that the moment it was demonstrated to me that 2/3's were genuinely offended and thought it was a slur I'd be in favor of changing it too.
My guess is, as has been suggested, that the vast majority could care less.
Since we are guessing. I guess it more a combination of it not being a high priority for many compared to other issues they face to where they become activists or even bother getting involved. I doubt that the Native Americans have anywhere near the money, clout, or organization for protesting anything compared to other groups which bring issues they view as important to the political forefront and awareness of the American people.
That doesn't mean it isn't demeaning to many of them.
Quote:
In comment 12964505 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 12964479 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12964441 steve in ky said:
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
I'm simply saying that the moment it was demonstrated to me that 2/3's were genuinely offended and thought it was a slur I'd be in favor of changing it too.
My guess is, as has been suggested, that the vast majority could care less.
Since we are guessing. I guess it more a combination of it not being a high priority for many compared to other issues they face to where they become activists or even bother getting involved. I doubt that the Native Americans have anywhere near the money, clout, or organization for protesting anything compared to other groups which bring issues they view as important to the political forefront and awareness of the American people.
That doesn't mean it isn't demeaning to many of them.
I don't disagree with you here at all. Well said.
They just want to set up a simplistic morality test that allows them to label as racist anyone who won't come out in support of their opinion. If they get Snyder to change the name, or better yet, force him to sell the team, then they carve another notch in their rifle butts and move on to something else.
This article, published in the liberal internet news service Huffington Post, pretty much sums up my feelings.
Thirteen Issues Facing Native Americans Beyond Mascots and Casinos - ( New Window )
They just want to set up a simplistic morality test that allows them to label as racist anyone who won't come out in support of their opinion. If they get Snyder to change the name, or better yet, force him to sell the team, then they carve another notch in their rifle butts and move on to something else.
This article, published in the liberal internet news service Huffington Post, pretty much sums up my feelings. Thirteen Issues Facing Native Americans Beyond Mascots and Casinos - ( New Window )
So you think the end goal here is to "make people sound like racists who don't agree with them"...
...as opposed to just saying "hey, we've come a far way in terms of treating people equally in this country, maybe we shouldn't have a pro sports team named after a slur".
It's so annoying to hear the argument that "why aren't they talking about the more pressing issues for x group!!!". It's funny because:
a) sometimes they actually are, but people don't hear about it because it's news, and
b) it implies that for some reason, we can only deal with one issue per subculture/culture/racial group/subset at a time.
They just want to set up a simplistic morality test that allows them to label as racist anyone who won't come out in support of their opinion. If they get Snyder to change the name, or better yet, force him to sell the team, then they carve another notch in their rifle butts and move on to something else.
This article, published in the liberal internet news service Huffington Post, pretty much sums up my feelings. Thirteen Issues Facing Native Americans Beyond Mascots and Casinos - ( New Window )
I believe there's a lot of truth in what you've said.
With this poll reflecting almost identical results as the last major poll Annenberg poll of 2004 their job just got harder.
It's so annoying to hear the argument that "why aren't they talking about the more pressing issues for x group!!!". It's funny because:
a) sometimes they actually are, but people don't hear about it because it's news, and
b) it implies that for some reason, we can only deal with one issue per subculture/culture/racial group/subset at a time.
Right, the United States of America isn't dealing with other issues in other subcultures/cultures/racials groups/subsets that are also pressing. I must have missed those threads on BBI...
Quote:
In comment 12964047 Mark C said:
Quote:
In comment 12963939 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12963902 Mark C said:
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
I 'm curious as to why you feel you have to "interpret" in the worst way possible, what a Navajo has said?
I don't know what you mean by "in the worst way possible". But let me see if I can satisfy your curiosity... I wasn't interpreting what a Navajo said. I was interpreting what his friend said he said about what he thinks most Indians he knows think about the subject. In order for that statement to have any meaning or relevance, I'd say that a fair amount of interpretation is warranted. And the bulk of my interpretation is based on the poster's own words: "Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities."
You see? I hear that as: How you (White people) choose to define us, doesn't define us, it defines you. And besides, we have other things to worry about.
I don't want to split hairs and I don't think I am here. I want you to realize why I asked the question. What you originally said was:
"The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them."
Although now you are saying you were interpreting the poster's version of what the Navajo said that's not what you originally wrote.
I asked about you interpreted in "the worst way possible" because your interpretation leads you to conclude that the Navajo indicated that "it's your problem" and 'given how you've screwed us in the past we'll be watching how you handle this.' I don't see anything of the sort.
You say there's a need for interpretation. I say the Navajo's words are crystal clear; both he and his friends just don't care. Yeah he also says they have bigger problems but there's no indication from the poster that the Navajo blames those problems on white people.
Couple of things: First, I'm quite comfortable with the prospect that you and I will continue to disagree on the essential points here, and I don't disrespect your opinion, so don't think I'm trying to convince you of my position. However, you mischaracterize much of what I've said. For example, in my original post, I said "The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is...", but I phrased it that way for brevity's sake, assuming that the fact that these weren't actually the words of the Navajo person was obvious.
Second, I never said that the indication from the Navajo person was that most Indians blame their problems on White people. But it would be asinine to even engage this discussion about the Washington team name without acknowledging its context, namely, that White civilization on this continent engaged in genocide and the destruction of Indian cultures. Therefore, I acknowledged that we've done many more fucked up things to Indians than naming sports teams after slurs used to describe them (you incorrectly had me putting those words in the Navajo person's mouth). So, in that context, MY conclusion is that Indians, by and large, probably see the Washington team name as a problem that affects White people more than it affects them at this point.
I further conclude that using Indian apathy on this matter as some kind of proof that it's okay to use a racial slur against them is wrong. The poll itself is irrelevant; in my opinion, it is simply a tool being used to entrench bigotry. It doesn't matter what most of the Indian people think about this. (Incidentally, if it did matter, then why is it okay to offend ten percent of the Indian people?) What matters is that a growing number of people in general are disgusted by the fact that it's 2016, and we are still using a racial slur and calling it okay. To me, your desire to just take this third-hand anecdotal statement at face value is taking the easy way out.
I appreciate your approach but you're right, we're gonna disagree. In fact, to hear you say "It doesn't matter what most of the Indian people think about this" is baffling to me. If we're not offending Native Americans with the Redskins name then we can explain this by understanding this is just more nonsense ginned-up by our grievance industry.
Why is it OK to offend 10% of the Indian people? Because you can find 10% of any group offended by something.
Thank God that's not the standard.
Link - ( New Window )