Redskins' Dan Snyder Announces Creation of Foundation to Help Native Americans

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am not going to post a link because Mike Wise articles ought to be banned from all creation, but a news feed app pulled his latest Snyder hatchet job about finding a native american woman who posted a selfie with a 10 dollar bill over her mouth. You can guess the rest of the article.

I really would like to know what exactly Snyder did to Wise. I know the basics but he seems like he has only one mission and that is to tear anything that Snyder does down. And I would love to understand why the Post continues to employ him.

What it basically comes down too is a sports media movement since around 2000 where the media now considers themselves part of the the show. At the same time print has become old fashion. Add to the fact "sports" itself has moved from a multi-million dollar empire from the 80s to a multi-billion revenue machine. Combine these 3, it waters down everything, and the way to get notice is who can sling the most sh*t. Days of "reporting" is over. Mike Wise, Doyle, Sports Junkies, Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith, Czabe, Kornhieser, Wilbon,Costas, DP, Yahoo's idiot squad, and (insert whoever you personally dont like), etc...these guys want to matter too you more than who they cover

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am not going to post a link because Mike Wise articles ought to be banned from all creation, but a news feed app pulled his latest Snyder hatchet job about finding a native american woman who posted a selfie with a 10 dollar bill over her mouth. You can guess the rest of the article.

I really would like to know what exactly Snyder did to Wise. I know the basics but he seems like he has only one mission and that is to tear anything that Snyder does down. And I would love to understand why the Post continues to employ him.

Perhaps it's not personal? Maybe it is because Snyder is terrible at his job? Is it possible that Snyder the owner has no redeeming qualities? Or maybe Wise just hates Jews?


It's really hard to guess why Wise dislikes him but if he is anything like me I would imagine he hates his guts for valid reasons....consistent failure, lack of leadership, constant "learning" from the past, price gouging fans, etc, etc, etc.

If Snyder was no longer the owner of the Redskins would you shed a tear, be indifferent, or celebrate?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps it's not personal? Maybe it is because Snyder is terrible at his job? Is it possible that Snyder the owner has no redeeming qualities? Or maybe Wise just hates Jews?


It's really hard to guess why Wise dislikes him but if he is anything like me I would imagine he hates his guts for valid reasons....consistent failure, lack of leadership, constant "learning" from the past, price gouging fans, etc, etc, etc.

If Snyder was no longer the owner of the Redskins would you shed a tear, be indifferent, or celebrate?

me personally, first i would admit my bias, that I am an unabashed Snyder apologist. I think he royally screwed the pooch the first 5-6 years of ownership, and has been learning to get better over the past decade. Being an owner of an NFL team is not something you learn from other business ventures, and it certainly isn't something that is a natural fit for most people that make their living making lots of money.

With that said, my reaction if Snyder were no longer the owner would wholly depend on who the new owner was and how his first decade went. There are only 32 NFL owners in the whole world, and only maybe 1 or 2 that "get it right" in their first 10 years. Heck, JJ has 3 SB rings yet I would say that he hasn't gotten it right in the last 17.

In Snyder, we have an owner who is:
1) passionate about the team and it's history (positive)
2) willing to spend on players (positive)
3) has surrounded himself with questionable advisors mostly (negative but trending positive)
4) starstruck (negative trending neutral - RGIII will push him on this one)
5) cares about the players (ie ST funeral, at bedside when RGIII was in hospital, and more we don't know about) (positive)
6) makes considerable effort to help when causes are brought to him (Haiti airlift, Breast Cancer, Native American living conditions) (positive)


overall, I think he will be an outstanding owner, and it's a shame people seem to have stone age memories around him.

The Post has a significant contingent that does everything it can to defame Snyder (and he has given them his share of ammunition especially early on). C'est la vie.

[Dirtbag59]

This whole name thing has me playing Pontius Pilate. Make no mistake, I'm very attached to the name and certainly would never think of it as a racial slur. However at the same time I understand that while it may be a minority of people that are offended by the name you have to at least respect and understand that.

Even if its as small as 10% the fact of the matter is that a key principle in this countries is at the very least respecting and hearing out the views of a minority opinion. Now if its hogwash like refusing to give your diabetic kid insulin because of certain religious beliefs then obviously its fair to quickly disregard that but in the case of something less tangible like the Redskins name I guess we've had a good run at least avoiding this discussion.

I am somewhat open to changing the name but I think my breaking point would be if they had to significantly change the uniforms and logo. To me the burgundy and gold as well as the chief on the side of the helmet are the key symbols of the team for me.

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Regardless of what we think, we should give Snyder credit for taking the time to hear these people out. Apparently he did travel to some of these Indian reservations so good for him. But as I mentioned, stop with the statements. Come and and talk for once.

I can't find the story but a month or two ago I remember Bruce Allen talking about visiting various tribes and them telling them they did not find the name offensive which I kind of found humorous. Not because I think Allen is lying but rather because he seems to have a well deserved reputation as a charmer, something I've heard from various people who have gotten a chance to meet him. The type of guy that if you're pro or anti (*insert political issue here*) he could get you to at least strongly consider switching sides.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

...However at the same time I understand that while it may be a minority of people that are offended by the name you have to at least respect and understand that.

Even if its as small as 10% the fact of the matter is that a key principle in this countries is at the very least respecting and hearing out the views of a minority opinion. Now if its hogwash like refusing to give your diabetic kid insulin because of certain religious beliefs then obviously its fair to quickly disregard that but in the case of something less tangible like the Redskins name I guess we've had a good run at least avoiding this discussion. ...

The problem, of course, is twofold:

(1) The mere fact that you hold, and others share, an opinion does not mean it is reasonable. Further, unreasonable opinions may be entitled to a respectful "hearing" if presented in a civil manner, but the opinion itself is not due any "respect" - if by respect you mean some level of acceptance.

(2) Many people holding minority opinions seem to believe that they are only heard or respected if their opinions are accepted and acted upon by the majority.

By every poll taken, the vast majority of the Native American community does not take issue with Skins name. Those who do have been heard. Respectfully so. The minority is not, however, now entitled to have their opinions accepted or acted upon out of "respect".


"I have heard what you said and understand the basis for your opinion. Nonetheless, I disagree with it and, with all due respect to you as a person, I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

The Native American who object have been heard, their arguments understood but simply not accepted by the majority of NA people, much less by the majority of non-NA people. Nothing more is required. Thank you. Period.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The problem, of course, is twofold:

(1) The mere fact that you hold, and others share, an opinion does not mean it is reasonable. Further, unreasonable opinions may be entitled to a respectful "hearing" if presented in a civil manner, but the opinion itself is not due any "respect" - if by respect you mean some level of acceptance.

(2) Many people holding minority opinions seem to believe that they are only heard or respected if their opinions are accepted and acted upon by the majority.

By every poll taken, the vast majority of the Native American community does not take issue with Skins name. Those who do have been heard. Respectfully so. The minority is not, however, now entitled to have their opinions accepted or acted upon out of "respect".


"I have heard what you said and understand the basis for your opinion. Nonetheless, I disagree with it and, with all due respect to you as a person, I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

The Native American who object have been heard, their arguments understood but simply not accepted by the majority of NA people, much less by the majority of non-NA people. Nothing more is required. Thank you. Period.

Entertaining fallacious argument. Patent and Trademark Office is on the case and when they are done the majority opinion will live on in purgatory.

I wonder if the little one will live up to "We'll never change [it]. It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps" once he loses the trademark.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Entertaining fallacious argument. Patent and Trademark Office is on the case and when they are done the majority opinion will live on in purgatory.

I wonder if the little one will live up to "We'll never change [it]. It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps" once he loses the trademark.

I would imagine it's likely they will grandfather in the Redskins trademark. But even if the team did lose the Trademark on the name itself, they would file patents around the R, and a spear, and a thousand other ands that would make the effort to take the name away meaningless. You might be able to use knock off Redskins, but the color scheme can't be deemed offensive, so you couldn't use Burgundy and gold as part of your merchandise. The funny thing is, in this case denying the trademark would likely increase the usage of the term Redskins, as people try to make knock offs of the 'Skins gear.

FYI, they could easily trademark 'Skins.

In any case if they were to lose, an appeal would surely follow, and nothing would change till after that. if ever.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I would imagine it's likely they will grandfather in the Redskins trademark. But even if the team did lose the Trademark on the name itself, they would file patents around the R, and a spear, and a thousand other ands that would make the effort to take the name away meaningless. You might be able to use knock off Redskins, but the color scheme can't be deemed offensive, so you couldn't use Burgundy and gold as part of your merchandise. The funny thing is, in this case denying the trademark would likely increase the usage of the term Redskins, as people try to make knock offs of the 'Skins gear.

FYI, they could easily trademark 'Skins.

In any case if they were to lose, an appeal would surely follow, and nothing would change till after that. if ever.

They could do all sorts of hackish things but is it worth it? Once the trademark is lost the ship will eventually rust and sink.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Entertaining fallacious argument. Patent and Trademark Office is on the case and when they are done the majority opinion will live on in purgatory.

I wonder if the little one will live up to "We'll never change [it]. It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps" once he loses the trademark.

As I said, in this age of political correctness where tolerance of an opinion has morphed into a requirement for acceptance/approval of the opinion, "the problem" is that a minority can impose their will upon a majority as the patent office and you comment that the "majority opinion will live on in purgatory" demonstrate.

So some govt. functionaries got their panties in bunch because someone, somewhere might be offended, that doesn't change the stupidity of their actions, the unreasonableness of their opinion and the correctness of my initial assertion.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As I said, in this age of political correctness where tolerance of an opinion has morphed into a requirement for acceptance/approval of the opinion, "the problem" is that a minority can impose their will upon a majority as the patent office and you comment that the "majority opinion will live on in purgatory" demonstrate.

So some govt. functionaries got their panties in bunch because someone, somewhere might be offended, that doesn't change the stupidity of their actions, the unreasonableness of their opinion and the correctness of my initial assertion.

Political correctness? You're above such lowbrow dialog.

I oppose the rights of people to be derogatory, racist, sexist, and homophobic and I welcome the prospect of people airing their grievances and letting the courts/arbitrators decide. If this process doesn't appeal to you then I am afraid America is no longer for you.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

Speak for yourself man.

j/k

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The problem, of course, is twofold:

(1) The mere fact that you hold, and others share, an opinion does not mean it is reasonable. Further, unreasonable opinions may be entitled to a respectful "hearing" if presented in a civil manner, but the opinion itself is not due any "respect" - if by respect you mean some level of acceptance.

(2) Many people holding minority opinions seem to believe that they are only heard or respected if their opinions are accepted and acted upon by the majority.

By every poll taken, the vast majority of the Native American community does not take issue with Skins name. Those who do have been heard. Respectfully so. The minority is not, however, now entitled to have their opinions accepted or acted upon out of "respect".


"I have heard what you said and understand the basis for your opinion. Nonetheless, I disagree with it and, with all due respect to you as a person, I believe that (1)your opinion that cannibalism should be an acceptable societal norm is idiotic and barbaric and (2) you are wrong for holding that opinion. Further, the majority of people have the same opinion as I do and we will punish you if you try to eat any one.

The Native American who object have been heard, their arguments understood but simply not accepted by the majority of NA people, much less by the majority of non-NA people. Nothing more is required. Thank you. Period.

Appologies in advance if this is more suited for Debating with the enemy:

Fair enough but keep in mind I did preface it with the condition that the view can't be "hog wash." Though it would be an extreme example, just because pedophiles are of a minority and have a view that their activities should be accepted doesn't mean that we need to look into protecting them from majority rule.

On the other hand as much as it pains me to admit the proposition that the name Redskin is a racial slur is certainly a valid argument. Myself and many other Redskin fans certainly don't see it that way but its certainly not entirely without merit. After all if you were in a competitive debate with a million dollar payout upon winning which side would you rather take?

Bill of Rights Institute: Majority Rule versus Minority Rights | Bill of Rights Institute

The Founders had great respect for the will of the majority, but also understood that, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.” President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”
Independent judicial protection of rights by judges who are appointed and serve for life helps to ensure justice and the protection of individual rights. Citizens can also practice the civic values of consideration and respect in their daily lives in order to further ensure that the rights of the minority are respected.

This certainly doesn't suggest that the Redskins need to automatically change their name but at the very least it does provide justification for the team name to have its 'day in court.'

[DynamiteRave]

"Colbert Report" Ignites Outrage With Deleted Asian Joke Tweet

Stephen Colbert made a satirical joke about the Snyder making this foundation but instead used Asians. Now everyone's losing their minds.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

"Colbert Report" Ignites Outrage With Deleted Asian Joke Tweet

Stephen Colbert made a satirical joke about the Snyder making this foundation but instead used Asians. Now everyone's losing their minds.

Oh so everyone is in uproar about that joke nowwww? As a huge Colbert fan, that character/joke been around since like 2007. And that's not Colbert's twitter, Colberts twitter account is StephenAtHome. The account associated is run by Comedy Central and not even Colberts writers so....

[Mechanix544]

I thought the outrage wasn't about a tweet, but this......

‘Colbert Report’ Joke Deemed More Offensive Than Other 'Colbert Report' Jokes - The Wire