Redskins win trademark dispute

Tobias-Reiper · 12-28-2015, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by OldMaid

People throw up frivolous lawsuits all the time. We are joking , but yes, after the Redskins debate, lawsuits, why not some fool say Saints and everything else is against their beliefs , whatever.

Yeah, whatever.

Christmas in the public school systems is called Winter Break.
Thanksgiving Break is called Fall Break.
Easter Break is called Spring Break.
No prayer in public school systems.

Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution.

Redskins is against some Native American Indian groups.

Where is Danny Akroyd when you need him... no, "Redskin" is not against some Native American groups. "Redskin" is and has always been a racial slur to describe ANY and ALL Native American. It is just like any other of the racial slurs that come up as asterisks when you type them. Granted, we don't make much if it because we have conveniently placed most Native Americans in reservations.

A secretary is called an Executive Assistant.
Receptionist is ...Pubic Relations Communications Officer

And the complaints dept is now customer service, and the customer is always right, and partly cloudy is now partly sunny... so?

Whatever. It is all PC stupid.

Yeah, whatever.

Danno · 12-28-2015, 07:07 PM

[quote=Tobias-Reiper;687339]Yeah, whatever.
Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution.

Thats not what the constitution says.

Granted, we don't make much if it because we have conveniently placed most Native Americans in reservations.

We did not "place" them there and no one is forcing them to stay.

SloMotion · 12-29-2015, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

For crying out loud. Stop the bull****.
1. "Saint" is not derogatory term or racial slur. Never has been ...

It's been over 35 years now... you probably should stop now with the "PC is ruining the country" crap.

IDK dude, the fact something is not derogatory hasn't stopped the PC crowd before ... here's a good recent example (it just passed through the MN House or Senate) where the Minnesota legislature is looking at renaming Asian Carp to "Invasive Carp" because they feel it is offensive to Asians ... Minnesota-renames-Asian-carp-because-name-offensive ... there has been absolutely no outcry from the Asian community on the name of these fish and it actually encompasses three specific carp that originated in China/Vietnam (Asia, go figure ... ) and threaten the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Just an example of how PC is alive & well and how it wouldn't necessarily take an atheist to take offense at the New Orleans mascot ... there's loopy m'fers everywhere just looking for a cause,

.

burningmetal · 12-29-2015, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

So maybe it's about disallowing the trademark so the groups fighting the trademark can produce/sell goods with the Redskins logo and not pay the league? Just trying to follow the money trail and see how it all sorts out, #shrug.

Couldn't agree more. People will pretend to be offended by anything these days, if it can get them money. Either by lawsuit, or the right to sell goods at full profit in this case. There were plenty of native americans who came out saying this wasn't offensive to them. That tells you something about the motivations of some people.

Tobias-Reiper · 12-29-2015, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

IDK dude, the fact something is not derogatory hasn't stopped the PC crowd before ... here's a good recent example (it just passed through the MN House or Senate) where the Minnesota legislature is looking at renaming Asian Carp to "Invasive Carp" because they feel it is offensive to Asians ... Minnesota-renames-Asian-carp-because-name-offensive ... there has been absolutely no outcry from the Asian community on the name of these fish and it actually encompasses three specific carp that originated in China/Vietnam (Asia, go figure ... ) and threaten the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Just an example of how PC is alive & well and how it wouldn't necessarily take an atheist to take offense at the New Orleans mascot ... there's loopy m'fers everywhere just looking for a cause, .

I feel you may be confusing PC with politicians trying to either appeal to their party's fringe with irrelevant fluff (well, the irrelevant fluff that ends up costing taxpayers money, so I guess not so irrelevant

), or are trying to pad their resumes with irrelevant fluff: no one is going to oppose to rename a fish in the Senate.. well, maybe if the fish was the Robert E. Lee Carp

... but I digress. Happens on both sides of the isle. I doubt Sen. Hoffman and Gov. Dayton really want to call the fish what they are, as the article states: neither Ctenopharyngodon idella or Hypophthalmichthys harmandi, they don't exactly roll off the tongue

In any case, when it comes to "Redskin", it is a derogatory term, it is a racial slur. The word's meaning may have been watered down among non-Native American people, and may very well be because of a football team being named the Redskins and not hearing much (or not wanting to hear) from the Native Americans who are conveniently segregated in reservations, but it is not non-Native American people it offends.

As I've said before, I can only imagine the outrage of the very Daniel Snyder of there was a team called The Washington Treblinkers, with black and red uniforms. He would fight to have that name changed. But no one would even dare call a team the Treblinkers. And why wouldn't they? Because they are politically correct?

I can guarantee you, if I were to walk to you and your mother in front of your kids, and I called your mother something like .. well, can't type it because it would come up all asterisks, but say that sounds like "bucking count whole",the last think that's going to go through your mind is "this man is exercising his 1st amendment rights" or "how non-pc.. bravo!". I am willing to bet you'd probably take a swing at me, if not 2 or 3.

Tobias-Reiper · 12-29-2015, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Danno

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Yeah, whatever.
Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution.

Thats not what the constitution says.

Don't take it from me.

" Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

We did not "place" them there and no one is forcing them to stay.

Sure... sure ...

SloMotion · 12-29-2015, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

I feel you may be confusing PC with politicians trying to either appeal to their party's fringe with irrelevant fluff (well, the irrelevant fluff that ends up costing taxpayers money, so I guess not so irrelevant ), or are trying to pad their resumes with irrelevant fluff: ...

TLDR ... you're going off on tangents. My point was in regards to the possibility of someone finding the non-offensive nickname "Saints" offensive and giving a current example of just such a case ... not confusing anything. Renaming Asian Carp to 'Invasive Carp' because it hypothetically offends Asians perfectly illustrates that and how the Saints mascot may be misconstrued one day by the PC crowd, #shrug. Yes, I agree it's pandering to the fringe ... the "politically correct" fringe,

.

Tobias-Reiper · 12-29-2015, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by SloMotion

TLDR ...

Well, you should have.

you're going off on tangents. My point was in regards to the possibility of someone finding the non-offensive nickname "Saints" offensive and giving a current example of just such a case ... not confusing anything. Renaming Asian Carp to 'Invasive Carp' because it hypothetically offends Asians perfectly illustrates that and how the Saints mascot may be misconstrued one day by the PC crowd, #shrug. Yes, I agree it's pandering to the fringe ... the "politically correct" fringe, .

You are operating under the assumption that indeed someone was so extremely PC as to find the name "Asian carp" offensive; yet no one finds "Asian carp" to be offensive (well, I am sure there has to be a nut or two out there); not even Sen. Hoffman or Gov. Dayton, I assure you. They both merely found an opportunity to pad their stats without opposition through a totally meaningless action with literally no repercussions whatsoever.

So when you say that the name Saint could be misconstrued one day by the "PC crowd", it is highly inflammatory and pure hyperbole.

Speaking of letting go of the "pc is ruining the country" thing, probably could let go of the slippery slope thing at the same time.

Beastmode · 12-29-2015, 05:45 PM

They will get to keep the name. Can't go around banning everything just cause people get offended. I don't think people really understand the impact of banning things that don't harm anyone physically or financially. If that happens we are done.

Danno · 12-29-2015, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Don't take it from me.

" Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

So what law did they make?

12-28-2015, 05:52 PM	#11
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by OldMaid People throw up frivolous lawsuits all the time. We are joking , but yes, after the Redskins debate, lawsuits, why not some fool say Saints and everything else is against their beliefs , whatever. Yeah, whatever. Christmas in the public school systems is called Winter Break. Thanksgiving Break is called Fall Break. Easter Break is called Spring Break. No prayer in public school systems. Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution. Redskins is against some Native American Indian groups. Where is Danny Akroyd when you need him... no, "Redskin" is not against some Native American groups. "Redskin" is and has always been a racial slur to describe ANY and ALL Native American. It is just like any other of the racial slurs that come up as asterisks when you type them. Granted, we don't make much if it because we have conveniently placed most Native Americans in reservations. A secretary is called an Executive Assistant. Receptionist is ...Pubic Relations Communications Officer And the complaints dept is now customer service, and the customer is always right, and partly cloudy is now partly sunny... so? Whatever. It is all PC stupid. Yeah, whatever.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

12-28-2015, 07:07 PM	#12
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute [quote=Tobias-Reiper;687339]Yeah, whatever. Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution. Thats not what the constitution says. Granted, we don't make much if it because we have conveniently placed most Native Americans in reservations. We did not "place" them there and no one is forcing them to stay.

12-29-2015, 06:56 AM	#13
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper For crying out loud. Stop the bull**. 1. "Saint" is not derogatory term or racial slur.** Never has been ... It's been over 35 years now... you probably should stop now with the "PC is ruining the country" crap. IDK dude, the fact something is not derogatory hasn't stopped the PC crowd before ... here's a good recent example (it just passed through the MN House or Senate) where the Minnesota legislature is looking at renaming Asian Carp to "Invasive Carp" because they feel it is offensive to Asians ... Minnesota-renames-Asian-carp-because-name-offensive ... there has been absolutely no outcry from the Asian community on the name of these fish and it actually encompasses three specific carp that originated in China/Vietnam (Asia, go figure ... ) and threaten the Great Lakes ecosystem. Just an example of how PC is alive & well and how it wouldn't necessarily take an atheist to take offense at the New Orleans mascot ... there's loopy m'fers everywhere just looking for a cause, .

12-29-2015, 08:01 AM	#14
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by SloMotion So maybe it's about disallowing the trademark so the groups fighting the trademark can produce/sell goods with the Redskins logo and not pay the league? Just trying to follow the money trail and see how it all sorts out, #shrug. Couldn't agree more. People will pretend to be offended by anything these days, if it can get them money. Either by lawsuit, or the right to sell goods at full profit in this case. There were plenty of native americans who came out saying this wasn't offensive to them. That tells you something about the motivations of some people.

12-29-2015, 01:26 PM	#15
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by SloMotion IDK dude, the fact something is not derogatory hasn't stopped the PC crowd before ... here's a good recent example (it just passed through the MN House or Senate) where the Minnesota legislature is looking at renaming Asian Carp to "Invasive Carp" because they feel it is offensive to Asians ... Minnesota-renames-Asian-carp-because-name-offensive ... there has been absolutely no outcry from the Asian community on the name of these fish and it actually encompasses three specific carp that originated in China/Vietnam (Asia, go figure ... ) and threaten the Great Lakes ecosystem. Just an example of how PC is alive & well and how it wouldn't necessarily take an atheist to take offense at the New Orleans mascot ... there's loopy m'fers everywhere just looking for a cause, . I feel you may be confusing PC with politicians trying to either appeal to their party's fringe with irrelevant fluff (well, the irrelevant fluff that ends up costing taxpayers money, so I guess not so irrelevant ), or are trying to pad their resumes with irrelevant fluff: no one is going to oppose to rename a fish in the Senate.. well, maybe if the fish was the Robert E. Lee Carp ... but I digress. Happens on both sides of the isle. I doubt Sen. Hoffman and Gov. Dayton really want to call the fish what they are, as the article states: neither Ctenopharyngodon idella or Hypophthalmichthys harmandi, they don't exactly roll off the tongue In any case, when it comes to "Redskin", it is a derogatory term, it is a racial slur. The word's meaning may have been watered down among non-Native American people, and may very well be because of a football team being named the Redskins and not hearing much (or not wanting to hear) from the Native Americans who are conveniently segregated in reservations, but it is not non-Native American people it offends. As I've said before, I can only imagine the outrage of the very Daniel Snyder of there was a team called The Washington Treblinkers, with black and red uniforms. He would fight to have that name changed. But no one would even dare call a team the Treblinkers. And why wouldn't they? Because they are politically correct? I can guarantee you, if I were to walk to you and your mother in front of your kids, and I called your mother something like .. well, can't type it because it would come up all asterisks, but say that sounds like "bucking count whole",the last think that's going to go through your mind is "this man is exercising his 1st amendment rights" or "how non-pc.. bravo!". I am willing to bet you'd probably take a swing at me, if not 2 or 3.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

12-29-2015, 01:37 PM	#16
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by Danno Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Yeah, whatever. Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution. Thats not what the constitution says. Don't take it from me. " Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." We did not "place" them there and no one is forcing them to stay. Sure... sure ...
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

12-29-2015, 03:21 PM	#17
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper I feel you may be confusing PC with politicians trying to either appeal to their party's fringe with irrelevant fluff (well, the irrelevant fluff that ends up costing taxpayers money, so I guess not so irrelevant ), or are trying to pad their resumes with irrelevant fluff: ... TLDR ... you're going off on tangents. My point was in regards to the possibility of someone finding the non-offensive nickname "Saints" offensive and giving a current example of just such a case ... not confusing anything. Renaming Asian Carp to 'Invasive Carp' because it hypothetically offends Asians perfectly illustrates that and how the Saints mascot may be misconstrued one day by the PC crowd, #shrug. Yes, I agree it's pandering to the fringe ... the "politically correct" fringe, .

12-29-2015, 04:39 PM	#18
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by SloMotion TLDR ... Well, you should have. you're going off on tangents. My point was in regards to the possibility of someone finding the non-offensive nickname "Saints" offensive and giving a current example of just such a case ... not confusing anything. Renaming Asian Carp to 'Invasive Carp' because it hypothetically offends Asians perfectly illustrates that and how the Saints mascot may be misconstrued one day by the PC crowd, #shrug. Yes, I agree it's pandering to the fringe ... the "politically correct" fringe, . You are operating under the assumption that indeed someone was so extremely PC as to find the name "Asian carp" offensive; yet no one finds "Asian carp" to be offensive (well, I am sure there has to be a nut or two out there); not even Sen. Hoffman or Gov. Dayton, I assure you. They both merely found an opportunity to pad their stats without opposition through a totally meaningless action with literally no repercussions whatsoever. So when you say that the name Saint could be misconstrued one day by the "PC crowd", it is highly inflammatory and pure hyperbole. Speaking of letting go of the "pc is ruining the country" thing, probably could let go of the slippery slope thing at the same time.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

12-29-2015, 05:45 PM	#19
Beastmode 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,126	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute They will get to keep the name. Can't go around banning everything just cause people get offended. I don't think people really understand the impact of banning things that don't harm anyone physically or financially. If that happens we are done. SloMotion likes this.
Beastmode 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,126

12-29-2015, 07:47 PM	#20
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Re: Redskins win trademark dispute Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Don't take it from me. " Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." So what law did they make?