NFL Discussion Thread - Hall of Fame Game: August 3rd

Status
Not open for further replies.
They colts should give Luck a bye week no reason to put him behind that line against that defensive front.
 
JD617 said:
100027 said:
 
651akathePaul said:
Good article. It still baffles me that folks are just riding with the offensive-to-native americans assumption. People want to make a stand on something where there's no stand to be made and it's not even the group that's supposedly being degraded by the team name.
Click to expand...

Stupid article.  The ol "this person wasn't offended so no one else should be" line, like there aren't hundreds of Native Americans who HAVE made their feelings known.
 
It's like the classic post you see on sites like Reddit (they love that type of s**t) where someone says "Well I'm Black, and I really think that it's our own fault white people use the N word, because we use it to each other.  And we don't know how to behave anyway!"
Click to expand...

Stupid article is an understatement. I had to check and make sure I wasn't on the Onion.

Rick Reilly has been a joke for over a decade now but this is probably a new low for him.
Click to expand...

So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?

I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
 
Last edited:
JAYFIEND said:
BuddhaChris said:

Click to expand...

Repped
Click to expand...


700









couldn't resist. PS skills are non-existent I know.
 
Shox23 said:
They colts should give Luck a bye week no reason to put him behind that line against that defensive front.
Click to expand...


you're acting like the niners are some football gods that can't be touched, they just got tea bagged by the seahawks like just straight up dominated with no vaseline... i honestly dont see the colts losing on sunday...
 
651akathePaul said:
So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?

I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
Click to expand...
The entire column is basically the equivalent of "So I talked to my black friend....."

Here, read this.
 
651akathePaul said:
So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?

I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
Click to expand...
He just picks and chooses what he feels supports his point.  Here's Tom Cole, one of the most conservative members of Congress (and only Native Americans), saying they should change their name:  http://www.rollcall.com/news/cole_change_offensive_********_moniker-220851-1.html

“Come on. This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet,” he said. “It is very, very, very offensive. This isn’t like warriors or chiefs. It’s not a term of respect, and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don’t happen to live around Washington, D.C.”

I think the Annenberg poll is quality evidence, but it's a strange poll.  It was conducted over a year, in 2003-2004 because the sample size was so small.  You don't know if attitudes have changed since the issue has come more to the forefront.  You don't know who the poll actually termed as "Native American".

And he should cut with the "the name was meant to honor them" crap.  He fails to mention that the original owner of the ******** was one of the most hateful racists around:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Racism.  No one believes that he named his team to "honor" these people.

He says no one complains about the Cleveland Indians?  That's just patently untrue.  That logo is always mentioned in the same breath as the name "********".

And objectively, this issue aside Rick Reilly just sucks.  he sucks.  vomits onto the page.  What a hack.
 
Last edited:
100027 said:
651akathePaul said:
So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?


I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
Click to expand...

He just picks and chooses what he feels supports his point.  Here's Tom Cole, one of the most conservative members of Congress (and only Native Americans), saying they should change their name:  http://www.rollcall.com/news/cole_change_offensive_********_moniker-220851-1.html

“Come on. This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet,” he said. “It is very, very, very offensive. This isn’t like warriors or chiefs. It’s not a term of respect, and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don’t happen to live around Washington, D.C.”

I think the Annenberg poll is quality evidence, but it's a strange poll.  It was conducted over a year, in 2003-2004 because the sample size was so small.  You don't know if attitudes have changed since the issue has come more to the forefront.  You don't know who the poll actually termed as "Native American".

And he should cut with the "the name was meant to honor them" crap.  He fails to mention that the original owner of the ******** was one of the most hateful racists around:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Racism.  No one believes that he named his team to "honor" these people.

He says no one complains about the Cleveland Indians?  That's just patently untrue.  That logo is always mentioned in the same breath as the name "********".


And objectively, this issue aside Rick Reilly just sucks.  he sucks.  vomits onto the page.  What a hack.
Click to expand...

Stop making sense.
 
Blackboyfly said:
100027 said:
651akathePaul said:
So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?


I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
Click to expand...

He just picks and chooses what he feels supports his point.  Here's Tom Cole, one of the most conservative members of Congress (and only Native Americans), saying they should change their name:  http://www.rollcall.com/news/cole_change_offensive_********_moniker-220851-1.html

“Come on. This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet,” he said. “It is very, very, very offensive. This isn’t like warriors or chiefs. It’s not a term of respect, and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don’t happen to live around Washington, D.C.”

I think the Annenberg poll is quality evidence, but it's a strange poll.  It was conducted over a year, in 2003-2004 because the sample size was so small.  You don't know if attitudes have changed since the issue has come more to the forefront.  You don't know who the poll actually termed as "Native American".

And he should cut with the "the name was meant to honor them" crap.  He fails to mention that the original owner of the ******** was one of the most hateful racists around:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Racism.  No one believes that he named his team to "honor" these people.

He says no one complains about the Cleveland Indians?  That's just patently untrue.  That logo is always mentioned in the same breath as the name "********".


And objectively, this issue aside Rick Reilly just sucks.  he sucks.  vomits onto the page.  What a hack.
Click to expand...

Stop making sense.
Click to expand...

:lol: my feelings exactly. Like an article quoting Crystal Wright (who is the GOPblackchick on twitter) speaking on why stop and frisk is a great program and not profiling :lol:. As if muuuuuch less offensive team names haven't been forced to change over the past few years. There's probably some black people in my generation who wouldnt be overtly offended by being called colored, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have historical context and a nasty history associated with it and there damn sure wouldn't be a football team named that. Does Rielly know the origin of that word?? Typical lemme be contrarian and call everyone else lazy and a sheep for hopping on an issue, oh and by being delibrately obtuse ill generate more views and clicks!
 
Air Spider 777 said:
Coltsfan: I love the Colts but saying you dont see the Colts losing to the Niners is crazy.

I'm scared man. lol
Click to expand...

i think the goal of your game this weekend should be just to escape with andrew luck in one piece. no disrespect...but your offensive line and their defense is just :x
 
Last edited:
:lol: @ people defending the Red**** name.

I don't care what journalist said what.

That is an offensive name.

PERIOD.

My best friend is half-native american. He just got married 2 months ago. I talked to a lot of the native american side of his family.
They all said its one of the worst things you can call them. They hate it. But they feel helpless. They know their voices don't mean much to mainstream America, so they don't even know what they can do about it.

It's not just a "media-driven agenda."
This is real.
This actually offends Native Americans.
I dont care if 5 showed up to protest in Green Bay or 5 million.

They gotta change the name man. They just have to. How can you know that you are offending an entire culture with your team name and be arrogant enough to not care?
 
Last edited:
Browns really went into tank mode. I know all those Browns fans who just bought their Richardson Jerseys can't be too happy right now :lol:
 
LiCeNseD To BaLL said:
:lol: @ people defending the Red**** name.

I don't care what journalist said what.

That is an offensive name.

PERIOD.

My best friend is half-native american. He just got married 2 months ago. I talked to a lot of the native american side of his family.
They all said its one of the worst things you can call them. They hate it. But they feel helpless. They know their voices don't mean much to mainstream America, so they don't even know what they can do about it.

It's not just a "media-driven agenda."
This is real.
This actually offends Native Americans.
I dont care if 5 showed up to protest in Green Bay or 5 million.

They gotta change the name man. They just have to. How can you know that you are offending an entire culture with your team name and be arrogant enough to not care?
Click to expand...

Could you imagine if a professional sports team tried to name themselves the ******** in 2013? NO WAY it would fly. I definitely don't think the Diplomats organization is racist (currently anyways) but they really should be more open to changing the name. It's a racial slur, don't care if people find it offensive or not.
 
Last edited:
651akathePaul said:
I'll have to read all this when I get home.
Click to expand...
Respect you and your opinions on this site.  I just think you are dead wrong on this one.

I also think the Celtics/Notre Dame Irish comparison is so ridiculous.  Like, hmm...  Boston and Notre Dame- what do those two places have in common?  Lots of Irish Catholic people in positions of power!  Maybe that's why they chose those names.  Maybe that's why they don't find them offensive.  No comparison whatsoever.
 
Air Spider 777 said:
Coltsfan: I love the Colts but saying you dont see the Colts losing to the Niners is crazy.


I'm scared man. lol
Click to expand...


lol, im dead serious everyone is saying the niners are coming off a loss so they are gonna beat the colts by double digits... the colts are coming off a loss too and a game that they shouldve won, i think both teams need this win, but honestly think the colts are gonna win... WHAT ABOUT TRENT RICHARDSON THOUGH? LOL
 
Good move by the Browns, by the way. They know who they're after in the draft, and between this move and starting Brian Hoyer it looks as if they won't be denied 
laugh.gif
. And they never 'passed' on RGIII for Weeden...they simply didn't have enough to overtake the Skins. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom