Philosophy Now Forum

"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.

Haven't really followed the horseshit about 'redskin'...can't say I care one way or the other.

Am curious, though: How many American Indians have voiced their offense?

Do Indians have a bee in their collective bonnet over 'redskin', or, is it just a buncha friggin' busy bodies (with too much free time) makin' a stink over nuthin'?

henry quirk wrote:How many American Indians have voiced their offense [at the name "Redskins"]?

Practically all of them, through the NCAI

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

Would you consider yourself a victim of such proscription?

mickthinks wrote:

henry quirk wrote:How many American Indians have voiced their offense [at the name "Redskins"]?

Practically all of them, through the NCAI

They aren't nearly that united. You might find many or even most of them don't give a shit, and even many of those that and who wouldn't support the team because of the name, would never make a fuss about such a pathetically trivial manner. Many Indians may be too proud to pretend to be a victim.

"most of them don't give a shit"

Bingo!

Most folks have more important things to do than get their hackles up about the name of a football team.

Only the terminally sensitive, or those with way too much free time, care about such things.

henry quirk wrote:"most of them don't give a shit"

Bingo!

Most folks have more important things to do than get their hackles up about the name of a football team.

Only the terminally sensitive, or those with way too much free time, care about such things.

I'm with Henry on this one, on most social issues, most people don't care till someone tries to get a finger in their wallet.



[Edited by iMod]

thedoc wrote: [Edited by iMod]

As expected.

henry quirk wrote:Most folks have more important things to do than get their hackles up about the name of a football team. Only the terminally sensitive ... care about such things.

So those that oppose a change of name are terminally sensitive and need to get a life? I would agree!

mickthinks wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Most folks have more important things to do than get their hackles up about the name of a football team. Only the terminally sensitive ... care about such things.

So those that oppose a change of name are terminally sensitive and need to get a life? I would agree!

No! everyone should just fuck off, it's a football team, where someone choose a name that means nothing to the team.

No! everyone should just fuck off, it's a football team, where someone choose a name that means nothing to the team.

LOL Your hackles are so raised, you're becoming incoherent, doc.

Are you saying that those who want to keep the name are not sad losers? Then you need to explain how caring enough about the name to want to keep it differs from caring enough about the name to want to change it.

Seems to be a subject that won't go away. Doesn't the name "Washington Redskins" (and their logo) bring to mind an image of a band of Indians who must not be very welcomed, deserving to be called 'redskins', complete with feathers and really red skin, conjure an uprising? Maybe not to everyone, obviously, but to be viewed by anyone with an imagination as a sports team who has a threatening name of our native Americans (or as the Canadians say Original People) does not bode well for a professional sports team who doesn't even have one American Native on it's team.

I've included an interesting article written by a native American that I found to be logical. Rather than provide 'copy & paste' paragraphs, here is the full article for those who may be curious as to the current pulse (8.22.14) -

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c ... kins-bogus

mtmynd1 wrote:Seems to be a subject that won't go away. Doesn't the name "Washington Redskins" (and their logo) bring to mind an image of a band of Indians who must not be very welcomed, deserving to be called 'redskins', complete with feathers and really red skin, conjure an uprising? Maybe not to everyone, obviously, but to be viewed by anyone with an imagination as a sports team who has a threatening name of our native Americans (or as the Canadians say Original People) does not bode well for a professional sports team who doesn't even have one American Native on it's team.

I've included an interesting article written by a native American that I found to be logical. Rather than provide 'copy & paste' paragraphs, here is the full article for those who may be curious as to the current pulse (8.22.14) -

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c ... kins-bogus

The article is interesting. Valuing liberty, those who want to use the word should be allowed to use it; those who don't need not.

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c ... kins-bogus[/quote]

tbieter wrote:The article is interesting. Valuing liberty, those who want to use the word should be allowed to use it; those who don't need not.

We agree. But I must add that the so-called "freedom" to use a word that many feel a professional sports entity should not be blatantly refusing to discontinue using is only the sign that one's wealth has the upper hand in decision making.

No longer a sports fan, I personally find the name an interference with decent behavior which I feel would be better to serve the public as an example of our 21st Century values system by changing the name.... or using a potato as a logo for a "red skin potato is nothing to be shunned" and indeed, held to high esteem in Idaho and with potato lovers.

mickthinks wrote:No! everyone should just fuck off, it's a football team, where someone choose a name that means nothing to the team.

LOL Your hackles are so raised, you're becoming incoherent, doc.

Are you saying that those who want to keep the name are not sad losers? Then you need to explain how caring enough about the name to want to keep it differs from caring enough about the name to want to change it.

Yes, those who're going through much trouble to keep the name from being changed who aren't connected with the organization, aren't necessarily less pathetic than those who're going to much trouble to get it changed. One must ask why and how they are actively opposing the name change. If like the Indians, they're playing the role of victims, then they're pathetic. If they're doing so to oppose this victim culture, then one can only ask them why they are choosing this matter, as opposed to more significant ones, for their efforts - and then that aside, one may ask why they want to try to change society in general.