LIFE:
I’M CROSSING EVERYTHING: Please oh please oh please oh please.
INCOMING!
DON’T BE EVIL: Remember all of that? I’m not sure Google actually does.
A HANDFUL OF STUDIES RELATED TO YOUR HEALTH: Some of this was new to me. And now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go find me a buttload of oxytocin.
FOOD LABELS: It’s not always what you think.
IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRY…these people would be laughed out of the room. Instead, millions of people’s live depend upon their craptacularly shoddy surveys. I know about this stuff.
SKY CANDY:
LIFE OR LIMB: This is a really good read from a man I have new respect for.
STATISTIC OF THE WEEK: I admit I am kind of surprised by this. Pleasantly surprised is not really the best way to put it, but something like that.
DON’T GO IN THE WATER: This might be relevant to your interests if you’re near The Gulf of Mexico. Also, this is not the first story I’ve run across concerning these things wondering outside their usual hoods.
TRAILBLAZER:
AND SOMEHOW…I would still love to visit here.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? I have doubts about this.
BONUS INCOMING! Can’t. Even. Wait.
Need something else to read?
- Yes. I realize this is a recent post. As in really recent. But, this right here. You are not Angus Young.
- Solid advice.
- Honestly, I don’t care for number 3. Nope. Not going to lie.
Tim Johnstone is Dappered’s music correspondent as well as our resident gatherer of all things interwebs related.
Tim, after seeing you post about the Redskins I now have just read your articles for the last time. With the removal of the patent more people are able to use the name. Seems like backwards reasoning but nothing from this administration is logical anyways
I’m sure he’ll cry himself to sleep tonight.
I hope not. He has the right to say what he wants and I respect that. Just like Dan Snyder has the right to name his team what he wants.
Actually, he doesn’t, seeing as copyright law specifies that hate speech can’t be trademarked and it is without a doubt hate speech.
More people can use the name –> team loses licensing fees/royalties –> team changes name.
http://www.maxim.com/sports/the-redskinswhats-name
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Nov/02/real-reason-dont-mind-redskins-chargers-calkins/?#article-copy
http://philly.barstoolsports.com/around-barstool/90-of-native-americans-arent-offended-by-the-name-redskins/
Oh man, a link to the venerable barstool sports citing an unlinked-to study. You’ve really won this round.
And how could I not be swayed by an article by Maxim magazine written by a “Fatpickle.” Good thing they took some time out from posting pictures of hot chicks in various states of undress.
Some quality sources right here. Have you been published?
I’m not sure how all this anger about the Redskins name seemed to come up in the last few years. Growing up in DC I never heard of this, but when I went to school in Montana (where there are 7 Indian Reservations) I never, ever had a Native American tell me they were offended by the Redskins name. In fact, I had many tell me that was their team of choice because of the name. Maybe all these articles will convince the guys I talked to that they are wrong and they should be offended.
It’s important to respect the cultures of others and in a way ‘Redskins’ is no better than if we called a team ‘wetbacks’, right? But at the same time, this seems to be an American issue on racism that other countries don’t have. Take the All-Blacks of New Zealand. That name literally came because people thought they played like a team of all black men!!! That seems a hell of a lot more racist than Redskins, doesn’t it? But I’ve never heard a single peep about them changing their name. If anything, they’re celebrated as the nation’s team.
The grade school I grew up in were nicknamed the Indians. About 10 years ago they were changed to the Wildcats because ‘indian’ wasn’t politically correct. There are 3 schools in the county that now use Wildcats as a mascot.
Guess where I’m going with that is if we keep changing all these names to generic things like Eagles, Wildcats, Bulldogs, etc, don’t we lose part of our identity? Are the Cleveland Indians next? Because that name isn’t PC either.
I think it’s pretty okay if we lose the part of our “identity” that involves naming our sports teams after ethnic slurs.
I don’t think anyone is saying the Native American’s you knew in Montana need to be offended. But just because some people are not offended doesn’t mean we should ignore those who are. If I declare all Tom’s bigots and my friend Tom doesn’t mind, does that mean you aren’t allowed to care and we should treat it as a fact? (Not saying you are a bigot, just looking for an inflammatory term without actually riling too many feathers.)
I am fine with it if it’s across the board and we can’t have the Braves, Vikings, Pirates, etc. But part of my problem is that I agree with you it is just a slippery slope and what is acceptable or not is going to continue to slide.
Well, for those examples you gave – the only one that comes close to equivalency is Braves, and even then it’s not so much the name. It’s the logo and the chanting. Vikings isn’t an ethnic slur. And Pirates can be any ethnicity.
Any part of “identity” that’s based on denigrating other cultures and ethnicities isn’t worth keeping.
You are obviously upset by this. Because of the nature of this board, I’m not going to get into an argument with you, but will say we most likely have fundamental disagreements on how we view this world. Also, it’s not just that “some people are not offended”…some people actively have gone out of their way to make this their team when they are geographically located on the other side of the nation. These are the people I have firsthand experience with. I can tell you are offended, if you are Native American let me know so I can have my first story of a Native American telling me they are upset over this.
You do realize that just because some individual First Nations people you went to school with weren’t offended doesn’t mean that it’s not offensive, right?
They are free to hold their own views on the subject just like any other individual person in North America. So why is the opinion of a small subset of one ethnic group held to be representative of EVERYONE in that ethnic group? The people you went to school with aren’t spokespeople for the entire Aboriginal population of North America.
It doesn’t have to be an ethnic slur to be offensive, people can be upset at Pirates. Raping women, burning villages, stealing clothing, money, livestock, etc. There are entire villages that were destroyed. Or how about modern day pirates who rob ships or take people hostage? Is that not offensive to the families who have members who have experienced that and have to be reminded what pirates have done when they turn on ESPN or they have to see a fan-jersey in the streets?
What about Vikings, aren’t they characterized to have raided, raped and pillaged while idolizing Gods of War? Or the Fighting Irish…I’m Irish and maybe I don’t want to be depicted as coming from a violent nationality.
Do you see what I’m saying? People can be offended by anything, and who said only things that are offensive ethnically need to be changed and other offenses are allowed to stay in place? I maintain it’s a slippery slope.
And I maintain it’s a strawman argument. Though I can appreciate the Fightin’ Irish example.
All I’m getting from this is your opinions are formed from your assumptions, much like your false assumption I only talked to a few kids at school. I’ve talked to many members of multiple tribes across many age ranges, and my firsthand life experiences have given me my outlook on the world. Again, like I said to Joe…if you are Native American and offended, please tell me.
So you are able to say that some people shouldn’t be offended, and others should have the right to be offended? This is what I don’t understand…on the one hand it seems you are able to stand up for people who “should” be offended, but you are able to draw some sort of line where others shouldn’t be offended and they shouldn’t complain. (since I struck the word straw man from my previous post, I have to bring up cognitive dissonance in this one)
My attitude on pleasing everyone is like this saying I will butcher right now: “Every time I think I’m crazy, I remember 3% of the world thinks our government is run by aliens in cat masks.” The point being, for some people there is just no hope to help them….and some people will always be offended.
Also, I’m done with this topic because I’m not sure this is what the board is for. Bert, Joe, no offense taken (even if you did mean some) and thanks for participating in the discussion. Let’s talk about summer linen blazers!
Yes, I am aboriginal. From Canada. And nowhere did I assume that you only talked to a few people. The number of people you spoke to doesn’t matter.
I’m saying that their opinions are not representative of the entire aboriginal population. Your assertion of surprise that people are offended was due to your assumptions that the people you spoke to held the same opinions as all aboriginals in North America which is absolutely not the case.
not entirely sure what either of those movies are about.
but i’m intrigued…
Here’s hoping the Birdman movie will be as awesome as I think it’s going to be…