No... you do. I don't think you even understand it. You have so many different standards.
California governor bans Redskins name at public schools
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
How could you know he wasn't being offensive, he didn't outright tell you so. You can't use what you know about him, how he dresses, his sex, his appearance, his orientation, or anything else. So how could you possibly know?
At least that is what you tried telling us for two dozen posts in the last thread.
I know because of the context. He merely said Redskin... no qualifiers. He did USE the word Redskin, however. No offense was taken by me. He never MEANT any offense. He merely used the word and thereby displaying how using it doesn't always have to be using it AS A SLUR. Keep helping me prove my point.
Last edited:
Context. Context is the reason you get this issue wrong every time. I've tried to explain it. Others have posted at length to try to help you many times. You have a blind spot. You can not comprehend context and seem to struggle with numerous language huddles. I get it, I'm a bad speller. You're bad at understanding meaning. There are worse crosses to bear, but this one is yours. I'm here to help. I'll clue you in when you're wrong and you can proofread my spelling. Maybe its a left brain vs. right brain thing?
But... you're wrong. You DON'T get context right in this case. You never have. You literally admit to creating and endorsing a DOUBLE-STANDARD. That's never achieving "right" or "correct" or anything else you pretend is winning this argument for you. "Slurs" are not always slurs. You either distinguish when they are and when they're not, or you continue harassing and censoring language with your double standards so your sensitivities are coddled.
I can honestly say that I would have NEVER thought I'd see you endorsing a double standard.
Last edited:
A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards.
Yes, context creates many standards, as it takes the particular speaker and environment into account. If you can't accept double standards, you will never get context. If I use redskin to point to an apple, that's different than if I point to a native American. If I use the term in 1800, it is different than its meaning in 1930. If a white racists uses the term, its different then when a navajo school adopts it. All that is context. The word doesn't always mean the same thing. But the context around the naming of the NFL team makes it a slur because that was the inherent meaning of the word at the time and it was assigned by a white racist who appropriated native culture for profit. That pejorative meaning for the term has strengthened over the years. So even if you think it might have been an honor when first suggested, its clear the term is not an honorific today. Insisting that others bend to your intent to spare your own feeling is itself disrespectful.
NO! That is a double standard. If you keep playing that double-standard card, you will always get it wrong. And, what's worse, you will guarantee a perpetual racial prejudice between people of differing aesthetics. If that's what you want, you'll get it in spades.
I guess I have the same, if not more, contempt for double standards as you have for alleged slurs.
YES! That is a double standard. That is how context works. Words that I voice have a different meaning than words coming from your voice. We each bring with it a unique set of positions known to the reader. Our meaning of the same words are going to be different.
Detecting and interpreting that meaning is a skill. This is where you struggle. You have a very odd take on this because you don't insist words only mean one thing. You grant they mean different things at different times, but you want to blind yourself to the speaker as if the originator of the word has no bearing over the meaning.
Do you know what the MEANING of Redskins is in 2015? A FOOTBALL TEAM. In every discussion of Redskins, it is ALWAYS about a sports team mascot. SO, clearly, in 2015, Redskins means a sports team!
Yeah, I'm weird that way. I don't demand that only certain people get to say certain words.
Yeah, the logo was designed by a Blackfeet tribal elder, Walter Wentzel. He insisted they use that logo instead of the circle R.
Even your own double standard is working against you in the logo department.
Not at all. That logo tells us you are wrong when you try to pretend the name just refers to a football team. I suspect you know that to be so wrong that its nearly a lie.
Proving that the government is to big. If they can waste time on this issue, then obviously we have way too much government. To be blunt, who gives a crap about stupid stuff.
Do the Detroit Lions or Cincinnati Bengals refer to Lions and Tigers, literally? Are you expecting to see a bunch of African and Asian cats fighting each other at a football game?
Again you fail at comprehension. The offensive issue is that Redskins refers to Native Americans which gives it the context of a racial slur. Where you want to pretend it refers to football which is simply dishonest. Now if it had actually referred to the red skin of the football, you would be entirely correct. And if it had been intended that way, the team logo and styling would be significantly different. The logo points to the obtuse nature of your incorrect argument.
Yes, they refer to those animals. And that you now conflat Native Americans with animals shows your lack of understanding yet again.
This, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with a double standard, we apply them in everything we do.
Adults should work 40 hours/week, children should not.
Men are expected to carry heavier items than women.
Public officials should not be openly racist, and/or insulting, but non-public people can.
Women can laugh about menstrual issues, men can't laugh at them.
Silly examples, sure, but double standards that people don't have an issue with.
But take all of this simpler, you know, using CONTEXT:
Person A believes that a redskin is a mighty, proud, indigenous person in a specific place, and that pride can be exhibited in being one.
Person B believes that a redskin is a wild, screeching, tomahawk-wielding warrior intent on killing his opponents.
One of these is a "racist stereotype" that is likely to be insulting, I'm sure you can guess which one..........because I gave you sufficient context. And as you have labored to say, Person A could in theory be white and Person B native American.
Now, let's be realistic with the scenario: Person A and Person B both say, "Now that guy over there is a Redskin!" ....and that is it. They don't further speak to inform you of their intent, grant you more context.
Now one of those people looks like this:
And the other looks like this:
Now, according to you, you wouldn't be able to discern intent, because non-spoken context doesn't count. What Natural and I are telling you is that you are full of shit.
I give up... You're impossible. I conflate Fighting Irish to animals, too... in the context of a SPORTS MASCOT!
You even have absolute proof from NATIVE AMERICANS that they designed the logo! You're still not happy. That's because it's never been about THEM. It's been about YOU and others like YOU who are offended. And, then you go so far as opt for a blatant double-standard to bolster your argument. No, thanks. I want no part of that line of thinking.
You do, I presume, realize that a LEGAL double standard is different than just saying, "double standard", right?
I don't presume it is about Natural, he is likely pushing this on behalf of, you know, Native Americans who are upset by it.
I know you keep saying "they don't" get upset by it, but reality shows otherwise.
So you are claiming that lack of context somehow removes subjective intent?
So, as long as the n***** doesn't know why the person called him a n*****, he shouldn't be offended, because it doesn't have enough context?
Absurdity.
He doesn't seem to be pushing it on behalf of the Blackfeet tribesmen who designed the Redskins logo. it's a selective crusade you're both on.
Was Natural speaking TO a Native American? I don't think so. Your comparison fails. Next...
I think Strumm is on the search for the black fella who used to use the word n*****, because apparently, no others can then be offended.
Of course its about me. I'm expressing my opinions on the matter. Why would you think I was trying to express the opinions of some other people?
If you're out, stay out with these same tired points you bring up in every thread on this topic. Don't force us to re-explain this all to you again every few months. I get that you are a passionate fan of the team with an unfortunate name. I get that you don't want to feel bad about that name. I even understand some mental gymnastics that allow you to deal with that situation. But if you don't want to be made to look the mome, let it go. Eventually you will be a passionate fan of the Washington Red Clouds and all will be fine.
Is it an offensive term in the context of Native Americans? Yes. Do all Native Americans regard it as offensive? No. Is there a significant number of Native Americans who find it offensive? Yes. You can't just dismiss them because YOU don't think they should be offended.
That would be arrogant of you.
I would recommend you not presume that. That would be a double standard after all.
Tired points? You mean the ones that prove you wrong? I'd find a more caustic reference than tired points.
By constantly, consistently, and redundantly pointing to the "fact" that NA's created the logo....that high schools have it as their mascot, etc.
Do you think you've scored a point? You have been exposed as a mome* with some serious english comprehension issues who can't even face this topic honestly.
* 3rd reference
By the way, if they change their name, I will just stop watching the NFL altogether. The tradition will cease to exist. I only watch the NFL when watching Redskins games. I'll simply put all my focus on college sports. And, I'll sit back and watch as the Chiefs, Indians, Braves, Blackhawks, Seminoles, and Hawkeyes lose their names in favor of names that don't refer to Native Americans. Tar Heels is exempt.
So, your dismissing the ones I don't dismiss is okay. My dismissing is bad. Got it.
