The Right To Be Offended

[Stuartp523]

I've been meaning to say; the right will be offended, pretty much whatever you do. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Thx, uwot... offensiveness does not bother me personally, only pathetic to see someone resort to that.

You're incapable of taking offense?

[henry quirk]

"So those that oppose a change of name are terminally sensitive and need to get a life?"

Depends on who we're talkin' about.

If the owners and investors oppose a name change this is likely due to wanting to preserve the franchise 'as is' (since redskins merchandise represents the investment of a pretty penny).

If fans oppose a name change this is likely due to sentimentality.

If folks who don't give a flip about football, who aren't financially invested in the team, and who have no sentimental attachment to the team, oppose the name change then -- yeah -- they're just a terminally sensitive and in need of a life as those promoting a name change.

[mickthinks]

Thanks for getting back to me, Henry, and for at least trying to explain your view.

I doubt the cash value of the currently stocked Redskins merchandise represents more than a fleabite on the balance sheet of the corporation that owns the team, but perhaps you have seen figures that show otherwise. And as for the sentimentality of the fans, I think one man's sentimentality is another man's sensitivity. So you still haven't explained why one is reasonable and the other unreasonable.

[henry quirk]

The difference seems obvious: the fan (having attended many games, having outfitted himself with all manner of redskins clothing) has an attachment to the team, to the name, to the concept. He is sentimental about it.

The one who has no investment in the sport or the team, who opposes the name solely out of an idealistic bent, is sensitive.

As for reasonable/unreasonable: I make no such assessment.

I'm lookin' at motives here, not the merit of motives (for the record: I'm not impressed with sentimentality either).

Lastly: money...fleabite or not, a self-interested body wants its cash and will not give it up willingly.

[mickthinks]

The difference seems obvious: the fan (having attended many games, having outfitted himself with all manner of redskins clothing) has an attachment to the team, to the name, to the concept. He is sentimental about it.

That's a description of the way in which the fan's sensitivity to the name-change issue develops, not a description of a difference between sentimentality and sensitivity.

As for reasonable/unreasonable: I make no such assessment.

"Only the terminally sensitive, or those with way too much free time, care about such things" was clearly intended to pass for a judgement of unreasonableness. But maybe you want to take it back?


... fleabite or not, a self-interested body wants its cash and will not give it up willingly.
I understand Daniel Snyder et al are losing money by sticking to their tomahawks; http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11419 ... eping-name

[henry quirk]

"not a description of a difference between sentimentality and sensitivity"

Sorry, but it'll have to do.

As I say, up-thread, I haven't followed the subject and I don't care one way or the other what the redskins owners or opponents do, so, I'm not gonna spend a significant amount of time dicking around over the minutia of definition.

My (dispassionate) interest in this thread: are Indians bitchin' or are well-meaning non-Indians bitchin'?

Insofar as I can see: Indians don't seem to give a shit.

You cited some organization up-thread but -- in the little news coverage I've noted -- that organization is not the one at the forefront of the current disagreement.

The only faces I've seen in the little coverage I've paid attention to are white faces, not red.

#

"clearly intended to pass for a judgement of unreasonableness"

More an expression of my own distaste for their position, but: as you like.

#

"losing money by sticking to their tomahawks"

That may be the case (again, I'm not following the story).

If this is the case, then perhaps the owners are simply being ornery.

*shrug*

[SpheresOfBalance]

"Hearing criticisms of your own convictions and learning the beliefs of others are training for life in a multifaith society. Preventing open debate means that all believers, including atheists, remain in the prison of unconsidered opinion. The right to be offended, which is the other side of free speech, is therefore a genuine right. True belief and honest doubt are both impossible without it.

It isn’t just some Muslims who want the false comfort of censoring disagreeable opinions. Far from it. Gays, Christians, feminists, patriots, foreign despots, ethnic activists—or organizations claiming to speak for them—are among the many groups seeking relief from the criticism of others through the courts, the legislatures and the public square.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/no-offen ... 414783663e.
Recently, in football, the Washington Redskins played the Minnesota Vikings in Minneapolis. Thousands of people showed up to protest the word "redskins" as being offensive to Indians.

I really am offended by people who want to proscribe the use of particular words.

I agree that there is not one way to view any particular word/words, and that it really all depends upon ones intent. That one intends to demean another is not quite nice, though there are a lot worse things one can do. I always felt good about the teams name, "Redskins," not because it was demeaning, rather I have an affinity for native Americans, because of the injustice they were served by the 'white man.' Yes, I'm a 'white man,' but obviously not the ones responsible, though I do feel guilty to be part of a 'grouping' that was responsible. If I were alive in those days, I'm sure I'd be rooting for the "Redskins." To me it means a totally different thing than to those that are complaining about it!

I just don't really get the 'politically correct' movement. It's just so nit-picky.

[mtmynd1]

I just don't really get the 'politically correct' movement. It's just so nit-picky.

We're living in a totally different times as the 21st C moves forward. The instantaneous communications (internet) along with the new way to do our shopping, the explosion of the population... these are but a few indicators that we are more closely involved with the world than we may care to be. There is a new generation that has their own demands and from my position justice, fairness and respect seems to be key. I mention this because of the outcry of so many regarding the American Native population that has endured a less than ideal life for an extraordinary amount of time in a country that brags about it's wealth and might. The vast majority of these people are not second class citizens bur more third class than others. It is their youth who just might be the most offended by the name "redskin" as it is not a flattering name for a proud people and their youth just may be fed up with the dismissive attitude other people take towards them. I would be, I'm sure, if I were walking in their shoes.

[Stuartp523]

The owners may be ornery, or put dignity before money in this case, but maybe they're just more far-sighted than most. They probably are losing money, because the same fickle people that are withholding their money from the organization, are generally the type to waste it on things like excessive merchandise. In fact, these people would probably make up for the cost of making new merchandise with new logos by immediately buying it in large quantities.

But concerning the long term financial stability of the franchise, as well as needing the loud but half-dead supporters of the team, they need the more conservative supporters that have stood by the team for years. The majority of these latter people probably don't have the patience or time to get involved in this discussion publically, nor do they have then lack of self-respect needed to pretend to be anymore disgusted than they actually are. Beside, they may understand that the issue may repeatedly resurface itself, and that they can't keep spending time fighting it every time it does. Basically, the team is either owned by people who won't give in to liberal hysterics or it isn't.

What may happen if the owners change the name of the team is that those supporters will simply be just disgusted enough to relatively quietly stop supporting the team. And let's not forget that less than 20 miles away there's the much better team, the Ravens, and other teams within driving distance as well.

[mickthinks]

Basically, the team is either owned by people who won't give in to liberal hysterics or it isn't.

Dubbing your opponents in a debate "hysterical" is rather begging the question, Stuart. Do you have a non-fallacious way of making your point about how principled and noble the team's owner's stance is?

[mickthinks]

Sorry, but it'll have to do.

Sorry (lol) but your failures don't become successes by your shrugging them off.

You cited some organization up-thread ...

Not just "some organisation". The NCAI is recognised as the oldest, largest, and most representative national Indian organization, serving more than three quarters of the American Indian and Alaska Native population.

... that organization is not the one at the forefront of the current disagreement.

It stands behind those who are calling for the name to be changed. What do you mean by the forefront, and why do you think that should matter to us?

More an expression of my own distaste for their position [than a judgement of unreasonableness], but: as you like.

There you go shrugging off the points you can't deal with again! Unless you are one whose distaste for ideas is always independent of his judgement of them*, that dichotomy you've constructed there is false.


* That is, one who has no aptitude or appetite for philosophy at all.

I haven't followed the subject and I don't care one way or the other ... I'm not following the story ... the little coverage I've paid attention to ...
Yet you don't hesitate to give us the benefit of your opinion on it, Henry. Overween much?

[henry quirk]

Micky,

*shrug*

[Wyman]

Sorry, but it'll have to do.

Sorry (lol) but your failures don't become successes by your shrugging them off.

You cited some organization up-thread ...

Not just "some organisation". The NCAI is recognised as the oldest, largest, and most representative national Indian organization, serving more than three quarters of the American Indian and Alaska Native population.

... that organization is not the one at the forefront of the current disagreement.

It stands behind those who are calling for the name to be changed. What do you mean by the forefront, and why do you think that should matter to us?

More an expression of my own distaste for their position [than a judgement of unreasonableness], but: as you like.

There you go shrugging off the points you can't deal with again! Unless you are one whose distaste for ideas is always independent of his judgement of them*, that dichotomy you've constructed there is false.


* That is, one who has no aptitude or appetite for philosophy at all.

I haven't followed the subject and I don't care one way or the other ... I'm not following the story ... the little coverage I've paid attention to ...
Yet you don't hesitate to give us the benefit of your opinion on it, Henry. Overween much?

I browsed about on the internet on this subject and the results were mixed. The etymology of the word seems pretty innocent, as NAs used it and the white usage wasn't any more or less negative than 'Indians.' Several NA high schools use 'Redskins' as their mascot. On the other hand, more recently, any description of of races in terms of color, except white, has been seen as negative - if you called people yellowskin, brownskin, blackskin then most Asians, Mexicans and African Americans would take offense.

The terms 'Chiefs,' 'Braves,' 'Seminoles, 'Tomahawks' don't add to the argument either way, since these are terms either of particular tribes or descriptions of NA warriors and such - akin to 'cowboys,' 'Trojans,' or 'Warriors.' There's nothing insulting about taking on the persona of a tribe or Indian warrior chief.

I can see why Henry is ambivalent.

[henry quirk]

Just findin' it hard to get worked up about it.

Why plan to climb a mountain when I can just step over the molehill?

[Stuartp523]

Basically, the team is either owned by people who won't give in to liberal hysterics or it isn't.

Dubbing your opponents in a debate "hysterical" is rather begging the question, Stuart.

I found this thread to be more of a monologue for me than a place to debate. I don't find most here to be hysterical, even if they're propagating hysterics.

If I was having a discussion with anyone, I might have gone to the trouble of clarify such things.

Do you have a non-fallacious way of making your point about how principled and noble the team's owner's stance is?

I think they'll give in.