Roger Goodell: Redskins Name Honors Native Americans

[Lanky Livingston]

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch...e-the-money-to-show-during-sundays-superbowl/

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Boone]

All you have to do is read the insipid comments and you encapsulate my problem with the whole issue - it's illogical and makes no sense. And neither do the vast majority of people stridently screaming the name must go.

 

[Nobody]

Lanky, why do you support a name change? Is it because you find the name offensive, is it because you feel it's inevitable and you'd rather get it over with, or is it because you are viewing it from how you think you would feel if you were Native American? And I don't mean this in any negative way at all, I'm just honestly curious why you've taken the stance you have on the issue. You don't even have to answer, I was just wondering.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Lanky, why do you support a name change? Is it because you find the name offensive, is it because you feel it's inevitable and you'd rather get it over with, or is it because you are viewing it from how you think you would feel if you were Native American? And I don't mean this in any negative way at all, I'm just honestly curious why you've taken the stance you have on the issue. You don't even have to answer, I was just wondering.

I did not produce that film or have any part in it. I just shared it.

I've been pretty clear on what my stance is in previous threads. If you haven't been paying attention until now, my stance is that it's not our decision. I'm not offended on behalf of anyone else, I'm not trying to tell anyone to be offended by something, I just think that similar to the N-word, Redskin doesn't belong to us. It's not or word to throw around liberally.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[CounterTrey]

I literally laughed at that lame ad because it took all of one sentence for me to nuke it. "Yes they do, Red Mesa Redskins and over 20 other Reservation schools." Sorry but that's a BOOM! roasted if I ever heard one. Nicely produced ad but an absolute lie which many of the points that fill up the case made by these folks are. That's why I have and will continue to dig my heels in. If they have to lie to make their case it's propped up on a pretty flimsy foundation.

 

[Nobody]

I did not produce that film or have any part in it. I just shared it.

I've been pretty clear on what my stance is in previous threads. If you haven't been paying attention until now, my stance is that it's not our decision. I'm not offended on behalf of anyone else, I'm not trying to tell anyone to be offended by something, I just think that similar to the N-word, Redskin doesn't belong to us. It's not or word to throw around liberally.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

The impression I got from your comments on it was that you support a name change. If it's not your intent, it's not your intent, but it's how it came across in my opinion. I was just curious as to why. Your response seems a little defensive. People typically either support a name change, or they're against it. Either way is fine by me, I just like to hear both sides even though I'm personally against a change. I assumed you were in favor of it, so I asked.

As far as words go, they don't belong to anybody. That's just my two cents. Native Americans didn't invent English, so "Redskins" can't be theirs by default.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

It was probably a bit defensive. I've taken a beating for my stance several times here.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Nobody]

Gotcha, I completely get that.

 

[fansince62]

The impression I got from your comments on it was that you support a name change. If it's not your intent, it's not your intent, but it's how it came across in my opinion. I was just curious as to why. Your response seems a little defensive. People typically either support a name change, or they're against it. Either way is fine by me, I just like to hear both sides even though I'm personally against a change. I assumed you were in favor of it, so I asked.

As far as words go, they don't belong to anybody. That's just my two cents. Native Americans didn't invent English, so "Redskins" can't be theirs by default.

dude: Mr L's response that you bought onto was a rationalization. He came out and stated, correctly IMO, what his position has been all along in similar threads. to wit: "REDSKINS" is analogous to the "N-word". the whole bit about not telling individuals or groups how their decision process should end state is an evasion and largely irrelevant. the crux of the matter is whether "Redskins" is offensive or not. He has clearly stated he believes it thus. Not deciding for others how they respond/what they find offensive does not change the logic one iota - otherwise, he is stuck in a relativist nowhere land that is meaningless. by equating the words he is saying IT IS RACIST. the unexpressed "for me" doesn't change the true nature of the statement. anyone who uses the term is therefore racist. to argue otherwise places one right back in the ambiguities of "what was the intent? what was the context? what was the outcome? where did it happen? how was it communicated" blah, blah, blah. in short, a conditional tool for tarring people that has no measurable content that can be used to define a generalized rule that can be consistently applied. now, this goes beyond Mr L, but that's one of the core objectives behind all of this.

We all take beatings. I personally respect Mr L for sticking to his guns. He has a very definite point-of-view and he doesn't waiver from it. I just don't like the consequences of the position or the ambiguities in the expression of the position in terms of rule definition and enforcement. and I happen to like my "REDSKINS" team and do not find the label offensive...anymore than the vast majority of Americans (or Indians for that matter - who do not own the English language) if one is to believe polls/surveys.

what are the rules for deciding what is objectionable language? who defines them? how should they be enforced? who should enforce them? what are the costs and benefits of policing language and thought like this - including individual rights? what are the objectives of the people/groups who advocate for these sorts of social controls? what are the competing interests? if there is general agreement on a rule, should there be penalties (since there obviously are..e.g., economic)? when/if norms change....how are people redressed? what happens when mistakes are made? justice and rule setting is a lot more complicated than moving from an opinion - "America has historically been a racist, imperialist nation led by hegemonistic, evil white people" to "and so we must control how people reference terms that link back to this shameful history". there's a lot that falls in between.

a tangent - but I find the whole discussion asinine against the backdrop of cable television and Hollywood where "offensive" language and actions are employed that the political interests seek to punish others for using. all in the name or "art"...."verisimilitude". right. again, problems with defining a standard/rule and deciding who it applies to and when it applies. a cynical way of looking at it: "It's ok for me to make money off it (it's art!)..and it's ok for me to push policies/social controls that prevent others from making money off it (it's not art, it's naked Dan Snyder commerce!)."

 

[Boone]

Hey Al. Nobody asked a calm, reasonable question. Lanky replied defensively. Nobody pointed out he was answering defensively. Lanky acknowledged, 'yeah, my bad - it was probably defensive'.

Does there really need to be further analysis by a 3rd person? If you want to civilly take on LL for his thought processes and reasoning - do it. But this sideways commentary doesn't really serve a purpose. Assigning your world view to every post a member makes - it's really not helpful man. And it's coming very close to instigating or commenting with the intent of inciting other members.

The thread is about Goodell staking out a position on the name change. Let's get back to that please.

 

[tshile]

my favorite part was:

We looked into it. We listened to everyone. The name doesn't need to be changed, you need to get back to realizing the name is being used to talk about a football team.

and i give credit to Goodell (ew) for taking a completely baiting question, which was: would you call a native american a redskin?, and handling it well.

i would have been much more hostile and maybe choked the reporter.

 

[Nobody]

dude: Mr L's response that you bought onto was a rationalization. He came out and stated, correctly IMO, what his position has been all along in similar threads. to wit: "REDSKINS" is analogous to the "N-word". the whole bit about not telling individuals or groups how their decision process should end state is an evasion and largely irrelevant. the crux of the matter is whether "Redskins" is offensive or not. He has clearly stated he believes it thus. Not deciding for others how they respond/what they find offensive does not change the logic one iota - otherwise, he is stuck in a relativist nowhere land that is meaningless. by equating the words he is saying IT IS RACIST. the unexpressed "for me" doesn't change the true nature of the statement. anyone who uses the term is therefore racist. to argue otherwise places one right back in the ambiguities of "what was the intent? what was the context? what was the outcome? where did it happen? how was it communicated" blah, blah, blah. in short, a conditional tool for tarring people that has no measurable content that can be used to define a generalized rule that can be consistently applied. now, this goes beyond Mr L, but that's one of the core objectives behind all of this.

We all take beatings. I personally respect Mr L for sticking to his guns. He has a very definite point-of-view and he doesn't waiver from it. I just don't like the consequences of the position or the ambiguities in the expression of the position in terms of rule definition and enforcement. and I happen to like my "REDSKINS" team and do not find the label offensive...anymore than the vast majority of Americans (or Indians for that matter - who do not own the English language) if one is to believe polls/surveys.

what are the rules for deciding what is objectionable language? who defines them? how should they be enforced? who should enforce them? what are the costs and benefits of policing language and thought like this - including individual rights? what are the objectives of the people/groups who advocate for these sorts of social controls? what are the competing interests? if there is general agreement on a rule, should there be penalties (since there obviously are..e.g., economic)? when/if norms change....how are people redressed? what happens when mistakes are made? justice and rule setting is a lot more complicated than moving from an opinion - "America has historically been a racist, imperialist nation led by hegemonistic, evil white people" to "and so we must control how people reference terms that link back to this shameful history". there's a lot that falls in between.

a tangent - but I find the whole discussion asinine against the backdrop of cable television and Hollywood where "offensive" language and actions are employed that the political interests seek to punish others for using. all in the name or "art"...."verisimilitude". right. again, problems with defining a standard/rule and deciding who it applies to and when it applies. a cynical way of looking at it: "It's ok for me to make money off it (it's art!)..and it's ok for me to push policies/social controls that prevent others from making money off it (it's not art, it's naked Dan Snyder commerce!)."

To be fair, I didn't buy into anything. I asked a question, and got a response. Nothing more, nothing less. Not everything has to turn into a WWE-style downward spiral

Boone summed it up nicely.

 

[fansince62]

Hey Al. Nobody asked a calm, reasonable question. Lanky replied defensively. Nobody pointed out he was answering defensively. Lanky acknowledged, 'yeah, my bad - it was probably defensive'.

Does there really need to be further analysis by a 3rd person? If you want to civilly take on LL for his thought processes and reasoning - do it. But this sideways commentary doesn't really serve a purpose. Assigning your world view to every post a member makes - it's really not helpful man. And it's coming very close to instigating or commenting with the intent of inciting other members.

The thread is about Goodell staking out a position on the name change. Let's get back to that please.

Boone. It was civil. I addressed the logic in his posted position and I recognized his character in defending it. I then proceeded to examine the content OF A STATEMENT followed by an enumeration of qualifications that make this a much more complicated issue.

There is what Goodell has said....and there is the issue at the center of all of this that everyone has been speaking to in this and other threads.

My thoughts are now clear on this. They are fair game for questioning and counter-examples.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

 

[fansince62]

Not everything has to turn into a WWE-style downward spiral

You're right. unless it happens to be important.

no need to spiral downward on D. Hall's antics, Dan Snyder's making a ton of cash, or Lavar Arrington's radio persona, Albert Haynesworth's lack of character....I totally agree. everything needs perspective.

 

[Henry]

You're right. unless it happens to be important.

no need to spiral downward on D. Hall's antics, Dan Snyder's making a ton of cash, or Lavar Arrington's radio persona, Albert Haynesworth's lack of character....I totally agree. everything needs perspective.

Hall, Snyder, Arrington and Haynesworth are not members of this board. You want to talk about them like they aren't here, have at it.

You're a smart guy. I'm sure you know the difference between offering an opinion on some random topic and offering one about someone who's in the room and can hear you.

 

[Nobody]

You're right. unless it happens to be important.

no need to spiral downward on D. Hall's antics, Dan Snyder's making a ton of cash, or Lavar Arrington's radio persona, Albert Haynesworth's lack of character....I totally agree. everything needs perspective.

For someone who rails against slights, backhanded comments, insinuations, etc. with such fervor, you sure do seem to go out of your way to do it yourself sometimes. Just an observation. And this is coming from someone who likes you a lot more than most here do, so take that for what it's worth.

Although, regardless of how important something is, nothing is deserving of the downward spiral. That should say a lot coming from someone like me, who has been involved in more than my fair share of them over the years. In the end, it proves and solves nothing. Quite frankly, I'm just tired of it. The end result is the same, people are pissed off or upset, people develop ire for total strangers for reasons not worth fighting over, and they alienate themselves from the people who actually do like them. On top of all that, it discredits them when they say something that is actually meaningful. It's just not worth it.

 

[Chris]

 

[fansince62]

For someone who rails against slights, backhanded comments, insinuations, etc. with such fervor, you sure do seem to go out of your way to do it yourself sometimes. Just an observation. And this is coming from someone who likes you a lot more than most here do, so take that for what it's worth.

Although, regardless of how important something is, nothing is deserving of the downward spiral. That should say a lot coming from someone like me, who has been involved in more than my fair share of them over the years. In the end, it proves and solves nothing. Quite frankly, I'm just tired of it. The end result is the same, people are pissed off or upset, people develop ire for total strangers for reasons not worth fighting over, and they alienate themselves from the people who actually do like them. On top of all that, it discredits them when they say something that is actually meaningful. It's just not worth it.

dude: self flagellation isn't attractive! your history, while emotive at times, has always been to present an argument with facts that are connected to support a point-of-view.

how people emotionally react to the argument...and how you respond in kind...is an entirely separate matter. I get what you're saying, the emotional baggage isn't worth it to you anymore.

as for the silly part vis how many people may or may not like me...well.....I tell my daughter in middle school every day not to worry about that! what matters is selecting the right group of friends, discriminating whether the dislike has any content, keeping an eye on the road ahead and maintaining her integrity. I try to tell her that popularity contests are bottom of the barrel considerations.

anywho, your feedback is duly noted and absorbed! be happy!

 

[Nobody]

While unintentional, you crack me up. It's obvious I don't care what people think of me. Painfully obvious at times. Not really sure how you pulled a comment like that out of what I said.

It's nothing to do with making people like you, it's nothing to do with making people feel better. It's about not trying to go out of your way to be a pain in the ass just for the sake of being a pain in the ass. I have a history of being a dick just to get a rise out of people. Please ignore the pun in that As time goes on though, I've just come to realize it isn't worth it. It's not as fun as I used to think it was. I'm not out to sway public opinion about me, or about anyone else. I just find it comical that some people insinuate that it makes me weak or less of a person. Some people are just truly miserable, and there's no changing that.

My life is going great right now, and I am truly happy for the first time in a long time. I don't need pettiness in my life anymore, or knock down drag outs about meaningless things. I have better things to do, and many more reasons to smile than I ever have. I'm embracing that. If anyone doesn't like that, boo hoo, I don't give two shits. That's just my stance on things.

So, back on topic, if anyone knows the answer to any of the legal challenge questions I posed about a trademark being pulled, I'd be interested in hearing them. Al, if you feel like talking more about the off topic stuff, I'd be glad to talk through PM. And I'm serious, whatever you wanna talk about is fine by me, it's an open invitation.

 

[Boone]

Well, thanks a lot guys, for totally derailing a thread I posted (which I'm sure is a sentiment shared by anyone whose thread gets derailed by personal attacks). This is the kind of ongoing crap that ruins good sites. And it's embarrassing to have new members showing up and reading this nonsense. This conversation is done.