![]() |
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
| View Poll Results: IF (If If If) the Redskins Name Changed, Your Choice Would Be? | |||
| Warriors |
|
25 | 40.98% |
| Renegades |
|
4 | 6.56% |
| Rebels |
|
3 | 4.92% |
| Redtails |
|
5 | 8.20% |
| Redhawks |
|
6 | 9.84% |
| Bravehearts |
|
5 | 8.20% |
| Washington FC |
|
13 | 21.31% |
| Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 49
Posts: 3,007
|
Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
Oxford
Merriam-Webster Free I'm not using these to suggest these are the end all/be all to the discussion. But when I hear that we're headed down a slippery slope by changing the word Redskins, I disagree with its colloquial connection to solely a professional sports team. The fact that it has been associated with a sports team for so long doesn't nullify a negative connotation in most modern day dictionaries. The word Viking or Patriot lacks similar negative association in the very same publications. I understand the complaints that dictionaries are biased or the new definition isn't the same as it was in the 80s. But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries. Whatever your complaint is about the definitions (and I know there are plenty), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the anti-name crowd is grasping at straws or pulling offense out of thin air. You can disagree 100%, but I think it's a bit unfair to say the fight against this particular word makes no literal sense. |
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|