Courts Cancel Washington's Name Patent VOL: "Disparaging"

Calling someone's opinion stupid rather then elaborating on why they disagree and offering insight is the sign of someone who has trouble expressing themselves and is closed minded.

Just because the name hurricanes doesn't offend you doesn't mean it isn't others offended by it.

The same way people should be tolerant and accepting about Washington's football team name, people should be tolerant about people being offended by the name of a storm many people have lost lives and homes to being the name of a professional sports team.
 
Also would a group of Irish people offended by the Notre Dame fighting Irish logo be in the wrong if they protested outside Notre Dame games because they take offense to how the fighting Irish logo portrays them?
 
Let's change the Duke Blue Devils then. Isn't the Devil suppose to be red? That might upset Satanists.

How about the NY/SF Giants? I think people that are short might find offense to this.

Or maybe the Thunder? I'm sure the loud noises have scared the crap out of people. Fans might not want to be reminded of the loud, terrifying sound.
 
The Washington football team debate is a legit issue. I could see why people want it changed.

My hurricane example, while some may see it as a reach, some may have a legit argument for it, those who were impacted directly by the damage and devastation a hurricane can cause.

I just don't wanna see the Washington situation set a precedent and open the floodgates for people to complain about the smallest things and make a mockery out of what the Washington situation was about to begin with.

Next you might see evangelical Christian groups protest the New Jersey devils name.

Atheists protesting the Anaheim Angels name and so on.
 
One can argue that the team name hurricanes is offensive to those who've been affected by hurricanes. I personally could care less about the name since I've never been impacted by a hurricane but I wouldn't be dismissive of anyone who has been affected by a hurricane who takes offense to that name. That's just my personal opinion on that matter.

The Washington situation doesn't affect me directly, I can totally understand how a Native American would take offense to that name and want it changed though.
 
I guess I'm the minority here....I don't see a need to change the name.

For those that do. Enlighten me...what is it I'm missing? Is ******* some sort of slur?
 
same here. dumb they have to change it.

so they going to have to change the Cleveland Indians etc etc. .
 
Last edited:
 
i can see the argument about why the team name should be changed, I get it and all but can you really force someone who owns a team he paid hundreds of millions of dollars for to change the name?

I totally get how Native Americans would take offense and have every right to be offended by the name but if the team name changes, then what happens next.

This may seem like a reach to some, but if people who lost family members, lost their houses, and/or were displaced from Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Andrew, or any other tragic Hurricane were to take offense to their being a NHL team named the Carolina Hurricanes or a College Team named the Miami Hurricanes, would they be taken seriously.    I can't relate to anyone who may or would be upset by that because I never lost my house or a relative or friend to a hurricane, but while it may sound silly, I can see where and how a person who lost their home in Katrina or a similar hurricane could take offense to that team name.

Point i'm trying to make is if people are offended by Washington's football team name,  there may be other team names that people might take offense to.   The reasons may seem silly to most or some but to those offended by them it might be a real reason.  

Again this can sound silly, but maybe decendants of those who lost family in the Revolutionary War might take offense to their being sports teams called the Kings because their decendants from years ago lost their lives fighting a war because we didn't want a Monarchy in America.     Again this is an extreme example but if one team name gets forced to be changed for whatever reason, what's going to happen next?
Have any of you totally disregarding what I said lost any relatives or your home in a hurricane?

So your saying that it would be silly for someone who lost their home and family in Katrina only to be relocated to Houston and did dirty by the government to take offense to a NHL team called the hurricanes or a college team called the hurricanes, especially when that state, Florida has been hit hard with hurricanes over the years?

Also how can you force someone who spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a team to change the name? You got a right to not like the name and he got a right to tell you to kick rocks.
Calling someone's opinion stupid rather then elaborating on why they disagree and offering insight is the sign of someone who has trouble expressing themselves and is closed minded.

Just because the name hurricanes doesn't offend you doesn't mean it isn't others offended by it.

The same way people should be tolerant and accepting about Washington's football team name, people should be tolerant about people being offended by the name of a storm many people have lost lives and homes to being the name of a professional sports team.
Also would a group of Irish people offended by the Notre Dame fighting Irish logo be in the wrong if they protested outside Notre Dame games because they take offense to how the fighting Irish logo portrays them?
The Washington football team debate is a legit issue. I could see why people want it changed.

My hurricane example, while some may see it as a reach, some may have a legit argument for it, those who were impacted directly by the damage and devastation a hurricane can cause.

I just don't wanna see the Washington situation set a precedent and open the floodgates for people to complain about the smallest things and make a mockery out of what the Washington situation was about to begin with.

Next you might see evangelical Christian groups protest the New Jersey devils name.

Atheists protesting the Anaheim Angels name and so on.
One can argue that the team name hurricanes is offensive to those who've been affected by hurricanes. I personally could care less about the name since I've never been impacted by a hurricane but I wouldn't be dismissive of anyone who has been affected by a hurricane who takes offense to that name. That's just my personal opinion on that matter.

The Washington situation doesn't affect me directly, I can totally understand how a Native American would take offense to that name and want it changed though.
All those keystrokes though... 
mean.gif
 
same here. dumb they have to change it.

so they going to have to change the Cleveland Indians etc etc. .
Indians is a name Native Americans accept and dont consider a slur. ******** is the one name you never hear Native Americans say when describing others or in a prideful manner.
 
All these hypotheticals :lol:

1. Those words aren't slurs (maaaaaybe the Irish one though I've never heard of the Irish being upset by it)
2. If people ARE actually offended and that group has a good cause, then why not let them voice it and "we" can listen?
3. I'm guessing once it is changed none of that will happen. Major. D-1 universities changed and it didn't occur. Won't be any different
 
Last edited:
This, its really that simple.

It's not that simple. Everybody looks at things differently. You feel the way you feel about it and that's ok.

All I'm saying is I have been on this planet for 32 years...I have seen this world get ULTRA sensitive on certain things. I don't know many native americans but I do serve (US Navy) with one and he thinks this is ridiculous.
 
I'm still wondering how Daniel Synder can be forced to change the team name if he doesn't want to.

This isn't a sterling situation where he broke certain conduct codes that were in the contract he signed that allowed a forced sale.

If Synder holds firm and refuses to change the name, how can he be forced to?
 
I'm still wondering how Daniel Synder can be forced to change the team name if he doesn't want to.

This isn't a sterling situation where he broke certain conduct codes that were in the contract he signed that allowed a forced sale.

If Synder holds firm and refuses to change the name, how can he be forced to?

Everything I have seen says the NFL told him its up to him if he wants to change the name or not.
 
how is it offensive. if anything its hyping them up like they bad ***. don't agree. yeah its this ppl are changing and are sensitive. the worlds gone soft. I hope it doesn't change.
 
Last edited:
I'm still wondering how Daniel Synder can be forced to change the team name if he doesn't want to.

This isn't a sterling situation where he broke certain conduct codes that were in the contract he signed that allowed a forced sale.

If Synder holds firm and refuses to change the name, how can he be forced to?
I don't believe he can be forced to, even if there was an ample amount of bad publicity. But I do think if it starts affecting the NFL and the Diplomats bottomline it would then change.

how is it offensive. if anything its hyping them up like they bad ***. don't agree. yeah its this ppl are changing and are sensitive. the worlds gone soft. I hope it doesn't change.
But does blackskin or whiteskin take the bad *** "hyping them up" effect. I don't feel this is an issue where the worlds gone soft its just a case of being political correct in a society that "trys" to push equality. Yeah the word doesn't effect all native americans but when the National Congress of American Indians gets involved, its a problem to a large enough group of them become an issue
 
Last edited:
how is it offensive. if anything its hyping them up like they bad ***. don't agree. yeah its this ppl are changing and are sensitive. the worlds gone soft. I hope it doesn't change.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
This, its really that simple.

It's not that simple. Everybody looks at things differently. You feel the way you feel about it and that's ok.

All I'm saying is I have been on this planet for 32 years...I have seen this world get ULTRA sensitive on certain things. I don't know many native americans but I do serve (US Navy) with one and he thinks this is ridiculous.

You're opinion on the matter is irrelevant if you're not Native American, as is mine.

So because you know ONE Native American that thinks this is ridiculous, they all must think that right?

You know how many young Mexican kids I hear saying "beaner" and "wet****" because they aren't offended by it? Yet there are MANY Mexicans who would be very upset about it.

Not EVERY Native American will be offended by the word but there are a lot who are, and they are voicing their opinions (look at the commercial). If it does offend them, why not air on the side of caution? Why must people justify using the word because they feel that not enough Native Americans are offended by it? How many need to be offended by it before it stops being used? 51%?

I swear the reasoning of some of you it ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the protests are going to change anything because the effort is minimal. Its people protesting or who dislike the name yet still buy tickets or would take free or discounted tickets. Also its people who don't like the name yet buy rg3 jerseys and ******** apparel.

If it affects the bottom line dollar for Synder then maybe it changes. I don't see that happening though. Like I said before. People got the right to protest and not like the name but that's snyders team, he owns it, he has just as much a right to tell people to kick rocks and buy the team from him and change it if they don't like it.
 
You're opinion on the matter is irrelevant if you're not Native American, as is mine.

So because you know ONE Native American that thinks this is ridiculous, they all must think that right?

You know how many young Mexican kids I hear saying "beaner" and "wet****" because they aren't offended by it? Yet there are MANY Mexicans who would be very upset about it.

Not EVERY Native American will be offended by the word but there are a lot who are, and they are voicing their opinions (look at the commercial). If it does offend them, why not air on the side of caution? Why must people justify using the word because they feel that not enough Native Americans are offended by it? How many need to be offended by it before it stops being used? 51%?

I swear the reasoning of some of you it ridiculous.


QFT.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom