Random Commanders Thoughts

[Lanky Livingston]

Yet you continue to bang the drum!

Bang what drum?

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Goaldeje]

Bang what drum?

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

If I had to guess, he's probably talking about my mom again.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but I also think the name changers' case is often distorted, discredited and belittled unjustly. I think in order to understand why they want the name changed (and thus come up with a better solution), it's important to take it seriously, without the demeaning comments. Just my opinion, though. The status quo is this country is quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Lanky Livingston]

If I had to guess, he's probably talking about my mom again.

She's more curvy, like a saxophone.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Elephant]

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but I also think the name changers' case is often distorted, discredited and belittled unjustly. I think in order to understand why they want the name changed (and thus come up with a better solution), it's important to take it seriously, without the demeaning comments. Just my opinion, though. The status quo is this country is quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

No you're not! You've admitted you think we should change the name! You're simply staying true to your liberal sensitivities! You have no interest in listening to anyone…just follow your interaction with everyone on this site. For ****'s sake the evidence is overwhelming!!!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

No you're not! You've admitted you think we should change the name! You're simply staying true to your liberal sensitivities! You have no interest in listening to anyone…just follow your interaction with everyone on this site. For ****'s sake the evidence is overwhelming!!!

1) I've said over and over I waver on the issue, and am undecided. Just because you have an idea in your head of how someone "is" doesn't make it true.

2) This is the exact type of post we've been told to avoid here, after the PA was closed. You're not only getting political, you're bringing old PA stuff into this forum, and it's totally uncalled for.

This is the last time I'll respond, unless you actually want to have a discussion.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Shi no Tenshi]

You're simply staying true to your liberal sensitivities!

This is a useless addition to any argument. If you want to prove him wrong, and show that the name change is foolish, I would take a different tactic. Otherwise it is just so much name calling, and that doesn't help the "keep the name" side of the argument.

A lot of this looks like emotional arguing, and that doesn't convince anybody that doesn't believe as you already do. Hit em with facts.

 

[Boone]

I think where I see it differently is that I don't believe every issue in this world should be resolved by compromise. Some ideas are flawed, misguided, or just plain wrong. Listening respectfully (I think the Redskins are doing that) is fine, but there is no requirement to find validity or truth in another's perspective. The idea that all ideas have merit or should be held in an equal basis is strange to me. And the idea that because someone disagrees with an opposing viewpoint does not necessitate any response from those one is arguing against. One man's principle is another man's stubborn refusal to compromise I suppose. But I think there are times in life when one holds a strong belief and defends it. Period.

 

[Elephant]

This is a useless addition to any argument. If you want to prove him wrong, and show that the name change is foolish, I would take a different tactic. Otherwise it is just so much name calling, and that doesn't help the "keep the name" side of the argument.

A lot of this looks like emotional arguing, and that doesn't convince anybody that doesn't believe as you already do. Hit em with facts.

I respect that, but if you go back through my posting history on this subject, you'll find I have mostly stayed out of the fray. Who am I, as an anglo, to be involved in the outcry one way or the other? What I do loathe, despise, is when...using Ry's term...slactivists use faulty logic as you and the one other qualified person on this site have shown . And it doesn't help when the hypocrisy of many is unrecognized...sometimes I feel the urge to point out the obvious.

 

[Goaldeje]

I think where I see it differently is that I don't believe every issue in this world should be resolved by compromise. Some ideas are flawed, misguided, or just plain wrong. Listening respectfully (I think the Redskins are doing that) is fine, but there is no requirement to find validity or truth in another's perspective. The idea that all ideas have merit or should be held in an equal basis is strange to me. And the idea that because someone disagrees with an opposing viewpoint does not necessitate any response from those one is arguing against. One man's principle is another man's stubborn refusal to compromise I suppose. But I think there are times in life when one holds a strong belief and defends it. Period.

Well sure. But what if YOU'RE the one holding the flawed principle? If you separate out the BS noise from this issue it boils down to some Native Americans who are offended. They have a right to be offended. The question for most of us is exactly HOW many (or a better question perhaps is what's the percentage) of them are legitimately offended. I could care less what idiots on Twitter and Facebook think about this subject; I'm not sure what the percentage of Native Americans that claim to be offended is that would cause me to want to change the name, but I know we're not there yet.

Regardless, those folks on the other side of the opinion spectrum are offended (however many there are), and feel diametrically opposed to your opinion, or principle. So which one is right? Which one is flawed, misguided, wrong? I have a feeling I know the answer each side would give.

 

[Shi no Tenshi]

I respect that, but if you go back through my posting history on this subject, you'll find I have mostly stayed out of the fray. Who am I, as an anglo, to be involved in the outcry one way or the other? What I do loathe, despise, is when...using Ry's term...slactivists use faulty logic as you and the one other qualified person on this site have shown . And it doesn't help when the hypocrisy of many is unrecognized...sometimes I feel the urge to point out the obvious.

Oh no, I agree on your history of posts. I wouldn't say anything except for specific instances, not trying to make a generalization, just the one part there.

I think anybody with an interest in the team should be involved though, but I'm an odd one.

And all credit to Ryman, but he didn't coin slacktivist It's been around awhile

 

[fansince62]

slacktivists...good one. The textbook version would be all the Twitter users thinking the "Bring our Girls home" movement will do jack squat. Doesn't matter what way you lean, just yapping about a problem doesn't solve it, ya gotta DO something.

or prevent it from happening in the first place!

 

[fansince62]

I respect that, but if you go back through my posting history on this subject, you'll find I have mostly stayed out of the fray. Who am I, as an anglo, to be involved in the outcry one way or the other? What I do loathe, despise, is when...using Ry's term...slactivists use faulty logic as you and the one other qualified person on this site have shown . And it doesn't help when the hypocrisy of many is unrecognized...sometimes I feel the urge to point out the obvious.

or...as OM points out...the data doesn't even support the ridiculous notion that it is a matter of undefined percentages.

 

[fansince62]

Well sure. But what if YOU'RE the one holding the flawed principle? If you separate out the BS noise from this issue it boils down to some Native Americans who are offended. They have a right to be offended. The question for most of us is exactly HOW many (or a better question perhaps is what's the percentage) of them are legitimately offended. I could care less what idiots on Twitter and Facebook think about this subject; I'm not sure what the percentage of Native Americans that claim to be offended is that would cause me to want to change the name, but I know we're not there yet.

Regardless, those folks on the other side of the opinion spectrum are offended (however many there are), and feel diametrically opposed to your opinion, or principle. So which one is right? Which one is flawed, misguided, wrong? I have a feeling I know the answer each side would give.

wow.

so...Goal...what conclusion do you draw from this? that is to say...given some magic number of people who are offended by a language construct...what is the course of action you approve of?

 

[Goaldeje]

Well, as I said in my post, I'm not in favor of a name change as I have yet to see any definitive evidence that a large number of Native Americans are offended. I'm not sure what you're asking me actually. If at some point in the future I see more evidence that changing the name will benefit actual Native Americans in some tangible way and that more than a handful of them are legitimately offended, I may change my mind.

Sent from my SCH-R530X using Tapatalk

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

to be clear, I didnt coin the term, I just use it because as someone who has been very involved in the actual native rights struggle I get annoyed by people who talk a lot and do nothing.

you know what really bothers me about the whole discussion? its that we live on a continent where real injustice still exists, where there are reserves that are worse than third world countries, where the united states and canada send aid to places like the Palestinian authority where money is paid in salaries to terrorists in jail based on how many jews they killed yet they refuse to spend a fraction of that to make sure that indian kids have running water that is drinkable?

The United states still honours medals of "honour" that were given out honouring men who killed indian women and children with artillery, Canada still terms native people as " wards of the state" yet im supposed to get heated up about a goddamn sports teams name? One that I am actually a fan of because it was a source of pride for a young native kid growing up? Cmon man

 

[fansince62]

Well, as I said in my post, I'm not in favor of a name change as I have yet to see any definitive evidence that a large number of Native Americans are offended. I'm not sure what you're asking me actually. If at some point in the future I see more evidence that changing the name will benefit actual Native Americans in some tangible way and that more than a handful of them are legitimately offended, I may change my mind.

Sent from my SCH-R530X using Tapatalk

not messin with ya my man! just folowing the logic through to end state. hypothesis: some standard is established vis a given percentage of some group finding a term/label/name offensive. the threshold is passed. what action(s) do you claim is justified when this happens?

 

[Goaldeje]

I think I've answered that already.

Sent from my SCH-R530X using Tapatalk

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The problem is, who defines that amount of people?

I'm going to step out of this debate for good, I'm apparently giving a bad impression of myself to certain people (I was called an unlikeable douchebag earlier).

Change it or don't, I just wish they'd make a definitive decision and move on. The debate is god damn tiring!!

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[fansince62]

I think I've answered that already.

Sent from my SCH-R530X using Tapatalk

no..you haven't. you picked an instance. I'm asking for a general principle. otherwise....this is situational "ethics". is your general principle, then, that any time some group (itself a nebulous concept since, at least racial groups, are never homogenous) percentage (as yet undefined) finds a language construct offensive the language should be changed/eliminated? you still leave too much ambiguity. should the change be voluntary or forced? should there be penalties for refusing to make a change? should the party forced/voluntarily making a change be indemnified for losses? who pays?

what is it the folks who want to control the behavior of others are advocating as a consistent principle with known standards? what enforcement mechanism(s) is being advocated?

btw...as in this instance...are the members of a group who FAVOR a particular locution denied their rights when these prescriptive measures are put into play? Do Native Americans who happen to find Redskins non-offensive count for zilch? Are they impacted when a term they take pride in is erased from public conversation? can this descend into the "tyranny of the minority"?

from where I sit.....society can't even get to a reasonable, consistent answer to these matters. Let's take the N word. we all know this to be true: one group uses this word and they are hammered...sometimes deprived of a living. others can make a living, in fact a ton of cash, parading the word in their music.

since you happen to favor it....what is it you are arguing for? what is the rule and its enforcement mechanisms?