Patent office cancels Redskins trademark

[irishScott]

Someone is offended! We must take righteous and decisive action so that we may fap to feeling righteous and decisive!

^^^^ PC Logic


One of the surest signs of personal weakness is getting offended over a term so old it has effectively lost its original meaning. The British inflicted some great atrocities on the Irish. If some British guy called me a drunken mic with any serious intent to insult me I'd just dismiss him as an angry moron and go about my day.

But that's me. Apparently a large portion of the population, including some bureaucrats at the USPTO, think it is a Constitutional right to have pathetically thin skin. Helps them get their jollies off by addressing nonexistent "problems" I suppose.

 

[feralkid]

Someone is offended! We must take righteous and decisive action so that we may fap to feeling righteous and decisive!

^^^^ PC Logic


One of the surest signs of personal weakness is getting offended over a term so old it has effectively lost its original meaning. The British inflicted some great atrocities on the Irish. If some British guy called me a drunken mic with any serious intent to insult me I'd just dismiss him as an angry moron and go about my day.

But that's me. Apparently a large portion of the population, including some bureaucrats at the USPTO, think it is a Constitutional right to have pathetically thin skin. Helps them get their jollies off by addressing nonexistent "problems" I suppose.

Or perhaps you're just an asshole who will never understand the concept of cultural sensitivity toward others.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't care about who is offended or not offended, or why they are offended. It's obvious that the name is flat out stupid. Change it.

 

[bradley]

Maya, Inca, Apache or Lakota...they are all Native American people, you dope.

Well borders do change with the times, irrespective of language and culture, whether anyone respects them is another matter entirely. While American Indians did share some of the same genetics as the Central and South American Aztecs, Maya and Incas (we all do, btw,) they shared very little of the same language and culture.

From the little I read, American Indians were actually descendants of a tiny mountainous region of Mongolia. Perhaps that little tidbit will contain something new in which to be offended. Did he say mongoloids?!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ntain-region-Russia-DNA-research-reveals.html

And just because I draw a general picture, it's up to the human mind to make that leap or representation to something tangible. I guess it depends on the artist's talent to make it something more than a Rorschach test.

 

[bradley]

I don't care about who is offended or not offended, or why they are offended. It's obvious that the name is flat out stupid. Change it.

Huh? I actually like the screen name 'zinfamous.' You will do no such thing.

 

[feralkid]

Well borders do change with the times, irrespective of language and culture, whether anyone respects them is another matter entirely. While American Indians did share some of the same genetics as the Central and South American Aztecs, Maya and Incas (we all do, btw,) they shared very little of the same language and culture.

From the little I read, American Indians were actually descendants of a tiny mountainous region of Mongolia. Perhaps that little tidbit will contain something new in which to be offended. Did he say mongoloids?!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ntain-region-Russia-DNA-research-reveals.html

And just because I draw a general picture, it's up to the human mind to make that leap or representation to something tangible. I guess it depends on the artist's talent to make it something more than a Rorschach test.

Irrelevant. North America, South America, Central America...it doesn't matter.

The indigenous tribes are ALL Native Americans.

 

[irishScott]

Or perhaps you're just an asshole who will never understand the concept of cultural sensitivity toward others.

And perhaps you need to stop rationalizing.

As others have pointed out, cultural sensitivity requires context. The Redskins are a sports team. In fact the fight song is "Hail to the Redskins!", actually showing respect and admiration towards "redskins". No one talks about "The Redskins" sports team in any way that is intended to be offensive to native Americans. There is no snickering, no sarcasm, no "yeah, remember when our ancestors slaughtered the actual redskins? Good times!" or any such bullshit; implied or otherwise. Whatever it may have been in other contexts it is now a neutral term to describe the mascot of a sports team.

Now if the context was a lynching of a Native American and someone wrote "fuck this beloved patriot" above the strung-up corpse, then that's a different issue.

For another example, black people call each other "awesome dude" all the time. Yet when a white person does it it's "insensitive". That's a prime example of how the word isn't the issue, it's the interpretation of context.


Sorry, but you aren't standing up for the little guy, you're just looking for an easy cause to latch onto so you can fap.

 

[feralkid]

And perhaps you need to stop rationalizing.

As others have pointed out, cultural sensitivity requires context. The Redskins are a sports team. In fact the fight song is "Hail to the Redskins!", actually showing respect and admiration towards "redskins". No one talks about "The Redskins" sports team in any way that is intended to be offensive to native Americans. There is no snickering, no sarcasm, no "yeah, remember when our ancestors slaughtered the actual redskins? Good times!" or any such bullshit; implied or otherwise. It is a neutural term to describe the mascot of a sports team.

Now if the context were a lynching of a Native American and someone wrote "fuck this beloved patriot" above the strung-up corpse, then that's a different issue.

For another example, black people call each other "awesome dude" all the time. Yet when a white person does it it's "insensitive". That's a prime example of how the word isn't the issue, it's the interpretation of context.


Sorry, but you aren't standing up for the little guy, you're just looking for an easy cause to latch onto.

Like I said; you'll never get it. It's not something that is up to the abuser of the victim to rationalize.

If you insult someone, it is because they feel insulted, and no amount of rationalization on your part makes it right.

But I'm wasting words on someone who will probably never figure that out.

 

[Theb]

So will there old merch become collectible after they switch names?

 

[irishScott]

Like I said; you'll never get it. It's not something that is up to the abuser of the victim to rationalize.

If you insult someone, it is because they feel insulted, and no amount of rationalization on your part makes it right.

But I'm wasting words on someone who will probably never figure that out.

So I'm an abuser? Lol. There is no "abuser" anymore, there are no "victims", and there haven't been for many decades. That's something a lot of people with thin skin refuse to get through their skulls, to their own self-destructive detriment. It's gratifying to play the victim, provides convenient excuses for behavior. There isn't a person living who remembers slavery yet plenty of poor blacks still directly blame it for their problems and demand money for it.

Just because someone is insulted doesn't mean they are right, either; and no amount of rationalization on their part makes it right. If someone is insulted by, say, one of my farts and they attack me for it, they'll be the ones brought up on assault charges.

People have a right to feel insulted, they do not have a right to use that as a basis to dictate my behavior with force of law.

 

[JulesMaximus]

LOL! I love it when people tell others what they should and should not be offended by. "Grow thicker skin!" "Stop being a victim" "Deal with it!"

When did we become a nation of intolerant assholes? Nevermind, strike that last question... we've always been a nation of intolerant assholes. It is clear that is never going to change.

 

[irishScott]

LOL! I love it when people tell others what they should and should not be offended by. "Grow thicker skin!" "Stop being a victim" "Deal with it!"

When did we become a nation of intolerant assholes?

They can be as offended as they like. It's the attempts to dictate behavior solely because they are offended that's the issue.

I could make a restaurant called the "cracker beautiful ray of sunshine jeuden awesome dude beloved patriot ching-chong jap cafe", and anyone who's offended is welcome to not eat there. Beyond that they need a better reason than "I'm offended" to force me to stop.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

LOL! I love it when people tell others what they should and should not be offended by. "Grow thicker skin!" "Stop being a victim" "Deal with it!"

When did we become a nation of intolerant assholes?

If it were any other racial slur, I can't imagine people rushing to defend it. "God dammit, we're not calling our team the Kikes; they're the JIGGABOOS." We wouldn't even be having a debate if someone was trying to name a team the "Ni**ers;" we'd all agree "that's fucking ridiculous" and move on. But Redskins? "Ah, it's not so bad. There aren't enough of them to complain anyway." The rationale needed to make the leap that it's perfectly reasonable to keep a team name that a significant number of people find offensive is mind-boggling. Isn't the whole point of society to try to get along with one another? Would it really be so bad to change to a name that didn't offend a significant portion of the population? What nobility is there in defending an owner who only insists on keeping an offensive name out of sheer spite and hubris? Nothing about this makes any sense to me.

 

[bradley]

Irrelevant. North America, South America, Central America...it doesn't matter.

The indigenous tribes are ALL Native Americans.

In other words you want laser like distinction for the simple term beloved patriot, but no distinction whatsoever for a way broader (almost all-encompassing) issue as it pertains to genetics and the identity of the Native American Indian. I actually *know* a few American Indians who would take exception to that fact.

BTW "exception" is the polite version of the word offended.

 

[irishScott]

If it were any other racial slur, I can't imagine people rushing to defend it. "God dammit, we're not calling our team the Kikes; they're the JIGGABOOS." We wouldn't even be having a debate if someone was trying to name a team the "Ni**ers;" we'd all agree "that's fucking ridiculous" and move on. But Redskins? "Ah, it's not so bad. There aren't enough of them to complain anyway." The rationale needed to make the leap that it's perfectly reasonable to keep a team name that a significant number of people find offensive is mind-boggling. Isn't the whole point of society to try to get along with one another? Would it really be so bad to change to a name that didn't offend a significant portion of the population? What nobility is there in defending an owner who only insists on keeping an offensive name out of sheer spite and hubris? Nothing about this makes any sense to me.

Honestly I wouldn't really care what racial slur you put in place of "beloved patriot" if it was used in the same context.

I can't speak for Snyder, but my rational is pretty straightforward: "Your right to be offended by an implication that hasn't existed for decades does not trump my right to use said word as I see fit."

Should we ban the use of the words "crusade" and "crusader" because some Muslims might be offended? At some point in history everyone's ancestors have brutalized everyone else's ancestors. Why don't we make a vast historical study to make sure that no such terms remain in spoken language? That way we can even censor Shakespeare and Egyptian hieroglyphs! Has the PC camp established an official statue of limitations on offensive terms, or is it still completely arbitrary?

And no, society is not about "getting along", it's about mutual support. Next week I'm helping a friend of my GF move out. I can't stand the guy, I find him wantonly "offensive" in many respects, but I'm helping him move out because he's my GF's friend and he has a back problem, and he asked for my help. I'll help him, but I "get along" with him about as much as I get along with the spiders in my basement.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

And no, society is not about "getting along", it's about mutual support. Next week I'm helping a friend of my GF move out. I can't stand the guy, I find him wantonly "offensive" in many respects, but I'm helping him move out because he's my GF's friend and he has a back problem.

So who is Daniel Snyder "mutually supporting" through his refusal to change the team name? Is there some diehard group of fans who will stop rooting for Washington if they dare to brand themselves something that isn't an obscure racial slur? What changes if the team renames itself? Daniel Snyder has to admit that he lost a battle, and his ego won't let him do that. That's the ONLY reason the team hasn't been renamed already; it's the ego and hubris of a rich douchebag who fans of the team DON'T EVEN LIKE! Why defend that? It makes no sense.

 

[IronWing]

He can't change the team name. It's the only thing interesting about the dull sport of baseball.

 

[irishScott]

So who is Daniel Snyder "mutually supporting" through his refusal to change the team name? Is there some diehard group of fans who will stop rooting for Washington if they dare to brand themselves something that isn't an obscure racial slur? What changes if the team renames itself? Daniel Snyder has to admit that he lost a battle, and his ego won't let him do that. That's the ONLY reason the team hasn't been renamed already; it's the ego and hubris of a rich douchebag who fans of the team DON'T EVEN LIKE! Why defend that? It makes no sense.

Like I said I'm not speaking for Snyder. In all likelihood his defense of the name is a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.

I defend the name because I don't believe in changing it simply because a small minority insist on using an historical implication that doesn't actually exist anymore.

To flip the question around, what about those demanding the name be changed? Who are they supporting and to what end? Say we change the name, what's going to happen? A few offended native Americans become slightly less offended, but a lot more PC people pat themselves on the back for playing Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. The latter is the true motivation for the movement IMO, I'm convinced there are very few who are truly invested in how offended X% of Native Americans are.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Like I said I'm not speaking for Snyder. In all likelihood his defense of the name is a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.

I defend the name because I don't believe in changing it simply because a small minority insist on using an historical implication that doesn't actually exist anymore.

To flip the question around, what about those demanding the name be changed? Who are they supporting and to what end? Say we change the name, what's going to happen? A few offended native Americans become slightly less offended, but a lot more PC people pat themselves on the back for playing Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. The latter is the true motivation for the movement IMO, I'm convinced there are very few who are truly invested in how offended X% of Native Americans are.

:thumbsup: I can live with that.

By the way, it's not PC "liberals" who are pushing for this change. It is Native Americans. I just happen to support their right to be offended and demand change.

To quote an earlier link Atomic Playboy posted:

The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990. There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial.

Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American community do not find the term “beloved patriot” disparaging when it is used in connection with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging. The ultimate decision is based on whether the evidence shows that a substantial composite of the Native American population found the term “Redskins” to be disparaging when the respective registrations issued. Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d at 1077. Therefore, once a substantial composite has been found, the mere existence of differing opinions cannot change the conclusion.

In view of the above, petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS to be disparaging in connection with respondent’s services during the relevant time frame of 1967-1990. Accordingly, the six registrations must be cancelled as required under Sections 2(a) and 14(3) of the Trademark Act.

 

[nehalem256]

:thumbsup: I can live with that.

By the way, it's not PC "liberals" who are pushing for this change. It is Native Americans. I just happen to support their right to be offended and demand change.

To quote an earlier link Atomic Playboy posted:

And they are wrong

A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of beloved patriot were significantly more frequent than positive usage.[13] However, the use of the word Indian in a similarly selected set of books was nearly the same with more frequent negative than positive contexts.[13] suggesting that beloved patriot was not a derogatory term, but that most portrayals of Native Americans were negative in general

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

And in fact there are numerous Native American high schools which use it as a mascot
http://cnsmaryland.org/interactives/other-redskins/

If it was really so racist why would NAs be using themselves?

It seems to be pretty clearly invented offense.

 

[tboo]

Yes we can!

 

[JulesMaximus]

And they are wrong


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

And in fact there are numerous Native American high schools which use it as a mascot
http://cnsmaryland.org/interactives/other-redskins/

If it was really so racist why would NAs be using themselves?

It seems to be pretty clearly invented offense.

Oh, well it must be okay then...

 

[tboo]

So are you guys targeting beloved patriot & Span next?

 

[halik]

The funny thing about this, and the Cleveland Indians where I live, that just removed the huge lit up Indians mascot....

I've never once seen an American Indian say that these things offend them.

You'd think the news would go straight to an Indian to hear how they are offended, but nope.

Pretty sure there's a long list of tribes that officially filed complaints about that...

Also I don't totally follow the distinction that since it's an admired sports team, it's ok to use that term. Per that logic, SF Chinks, Brooklyn Kikes or Harlem Nigs would be perfectly fine sports teams. Oh and I guess Chicago Polacks also.

 

[JulesMaximus]

So are you guys targeting beloved patriot & Span next?

I'm not targeting anything... but I get why this name would be offensive to some.