I Am Offended By Notre Dame's Name

[martybegan]

Yours is not the opinion shared by Native Americans who find the word as offensive as the n word.

Once again, pulling facts out of your ass. Actually, polls of indians say the majority say the name is not offensive. Once again caught just making up your shit. If you weren't too lazy to Google before you make things up, you'd look a little less biased.

No, sorry, actually you wouldn't.

So the Native American groups protesting the name don't exist?

http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-...C-mascot-symposium-media-advisory-10-3-13.pdf

So if a single person is offended, or a small group is offended, it has to go?

I am offended by the name seawytch, it is offensive to water, salt and proper spelling of the word witch. Please change it.

 

[kaz]

Yours is not the opinion shared by Native Americans who find the word as offensive as the n word.

Once again, pulling facts out of your ass. Actually, polls of indians say the majority say the name is not offensive. Once again caught just making up your shit. If you weren't too lazy to Google before you make things up, you'd look a little less biased.

No, sorry, actually you wouldn't.

So the Native American groups protesting the name don't exist?

http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-...C-mascot-symposium-media-advisory-10-3-13.pdf

You said native Americans find the word as offensive as the "N word" when in fact polls show they overwhelmingly don't. There are stick up their ass liberals of every race. However, comparing any word which only offends a small percentage of a group to a word that offends everyone in a group is a non-starter.

Self victimization is part of every liberal group. Liberal women trot out first to OK attacking a non-liberal woman, liberal blacks do that to non liberal blacks and so on. That self victimization liberal indians do the same is just par for the course. Liberals are liberals first. Then they are black, female, indian, whatever. But don't expect anyone with a critical mind to take you seriously. You're all over the self victimization of liberal gays.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So the whole group is offended by the Name "Redskins"?? So far Ive only seen pasty butthurt white people making a stink over it. Progressive Guilt is such an annoying thing.

If a majority of the group being depicted was offended it probably would be changed. But considering all the noise is coming from the "perputally offended" type, its basically a bunch of hot air.

Is it a requirement that every single person in a group has to all feel the same way in order for feelings to be valid?

Because some people are proud honkeys. You said honkey would be bad. Everyone doesn't think so. So what now?

i dont want to change the name of something soley because SOME people might be offended. So basically if a single person is offended by something then it has to go. Is that where the bar is being set? 5%? 10%?

Our society was not desgined to be regulated to the satisfaction of the most easily offended.

But you just said Honkeys wouldnt be good for the same reason. When its you there are different rules

But Indians must all agree in order to make it valid? Want a ladder to lift that bar a little higher?

 

[kaz]

Is it a requirement that every single person in a group has to all feel the same way in order for feelings to be valid?

Because some people are proud honkeys. You said honkey would be bad. Everyone doesn't think so. So what now?

i dont want to change the name of something soley because SOME people might be offended. So basically if a single person is offended by something then it has to go. Is that where the bar is being set? 5%? 10%?

Our society was not desgined to be regulated to the satisfaction of the most easily offended.

But you just said Honkeys wouldnt be good for the same reason. When its you there are different rules

But Indians must all agree in order to make it valid? Want a ladder to lift that bar a little higher?

So you don't see any room between the current small minority who are offended and every indian? Actually there are quite a few steps between

Where we are - small minority

sizable minority

large minority

plurality

small majority

clear majority

overwhelming majority

almost everyone

100%

I do so enjoy how liberals take any statement and blow it up to be a ridiculous extreme as if you'd made some sort of point.

 

[martybegan]

Is it a requirement that every single person in a group has to all feel the same way in order for feelings to be valid?

Because some people are proud honkeys. You said honkey would be bad. Everyone doesn't think so. So what now?

i dont want to change the name of something soley because SOME people might be offended. So basically if a single person is offended by something then it has to go. Is that where the bar is being set? 5%? 10%?

Our society was not desgined to be regulated to the satisfaction of the most easily offended.

But you just said Honkeys wouldnt be good for the same reason. When its you there are different rules

But Indians must all agree in order to make it valid? Want a ladder to lift that bar a little higher?

I said to "most people" I didnt talk in absolutes. Also at this point to name a team the honkeys would probably be intended to offend, The term Redskins when selected was not intended to offend, but to connotate a warrior attittude.

Intent means something, you know that, right?

As for all of some group agreeing, no. But if its only a few % really butthurt over it, they can go pound sand.

 

[ClosedCaption]

i dont want to change the name of something soley because SOME people might be offended. So basically if a single person is offended by something then it has to go. Is that where the bar is being set? 5%? 10%?

Our society was not desgined to be regulated to the satisfaction of the most easily offended.

But you just said Honkeys wouldnt be good for the same reason. When its you there are different rules

But Indians must all agree in order to make it valid? Want a ladder to lift that bar a little higher?

I said to "most people" I didnt talk in absolutes. Also at this point to name a team the honkeys would probably be intended to offend, The term Redskins when selected was not intended to offend, but to connotate a warrior attittude.

Intent means something, you know that, right?

As for all of some group agreeing, no. But if its only a few % really butthurt over it, they can go pound sand.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

 

[kaz]

But you just said Honkeys wouldnt be good for the same reason. When its you there are different rules

But Indians must all agree in order to make it valid? Want a ladder to lift that bar a little higher?

I said to "most people" I didnt talk in absolutes. Also at this point to name a team the honkeys would probably be intended to offend, The term Redskins when selected was not intended to offend, but to connotate a warrior attittude.

Intent means something, you know that, right?

As for all of some group agreeing, no. But if its only a few % really butthurt over it, they can go pound sand.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

What you committed is logical fallacy called redefinition.

Marty was referring "intention" as the intent to offend, as in that Redskins are not intending to offend anyone, which matters.

You're referring to actions. Like the minimum wage isn't intended to destroy inner cities and prevent poor black kids from getting jobs, but it does. That is the path to hell you are on with your good intentions.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Washington Firewaters?

 

[eflatminor]

The Washington Firewaters?

The Washington Central Planners

Now THAT'S a terrifying name!

 

[martybegan]

But you just said Honkeys wouldnt be good for the same reason. When its you there are different rules

But Indians must all agree in order to make it valid? Want a ladder to lift that bar a little higher?

I said to "most people" I didnt talk in absolutes. Also at this point to name a team the honkeys would probably be intended to offend, The term Redskins when selected was not intended to offend, but to connotate a warrior attittude.

Intent means something, you know that, right?

As for all of some group agreeing, no. But if its only a few % really butthurt over it, they can go pound sand.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

Where do i say "all indians" have to be against it? I majority would make me take interest, a large majority may make me agree with them, but all the numbers point to this not being a big deal, except in the minds of the progressive racial apologists and the low end of the butthurt sensitivity scale. Consequently I would not really care if you named a team the honkeys, however doing it would be a blantant typical progressive move to "Show people" how wrong they are. The concept of being intentionally offensive to prove a stupid point is more annoying than the actual name.

Also, to really go after me the team would have to be named the dagos, micks, guinea's wops, paddies, or something along that line.

This is an issue mostly to the progressive guilty chattering class, nothing more.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I said to "most people" I didnt talk in absolutes. Also at this point to name a team the honkeys would probably be intended to offend, The term Redskins when selected was not intended to offend, but to connotate a warrior attittude.

Intent means something, you know that, right?

As for all of some group agreeing, no. But if its only a few % really butthurt over it, they can go pound sand.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

What you committed is logical fallacy called redefinition.

Marty was referring "intention" as the intent to offend, as in that Redskins are not intending to offend anyone, which matters.

You're referring to actions. Like the minimum wage isn't intended to destroy inner cities and prevent poor black kids from getting jobs, but it does. That is the path to hell you are on with your good intentions.

I understand that and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What its intent is and how its perceived is two different things. In this instance you are trying to make intent have more weight that perception.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry for not having scanned this thread to see if someone else has posted a similar comment before me, but if the Washington D.C. football team wants to adopt a nickname that is appropriate and will chill the veritable bones of its opponents, there are many apropos possibilities, among which are:

The Litigators,
The Beltway Bandits,
The Regulators,
The G-Men,
The Revenuers.

I'm leaning toward the Washington Beltway Bandits myself.

Oh very good. I can add a LOT of choice names to that list.

 

[martybegan]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

What you committed is logical fallacy called redefinition.

Marty was referring "intention" as the intent to offend, as in that Redskins are not intending to offend anyone, which matters.

You're referring to actions. Like the minimum wage isn't intended to destroy inner cities and prevent poor black kids from getting jobs, but it does. That is the path to hell you are on with your good intentions.

I understand that and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What its intent is and how its perceived is two different things. In this instance you are trying to make intent have more weight that perception.

Fine, I am offended by the lack of a space between "closed" and "captioned" in your name. Please change it. Your itention doesnt matter, I percieve it as offensive.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I said to "most people" I didnt talk in absolutes. Also at this point to name a team the honkeys would probably be intended to offend, The term Redskins when selected was not intended to offend, but to connotate a warrior attittude.

Intent means something, you know that, right?

As for all of some group agreeing, no. But if its only a few % really butthurt over it, they can go pound sand.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

Where do i say "all indians" have to be against it? I majority would make me take interest, a large majority may make me agree with them, but all the numbers point to this not being a big deal, except in the minds of the progressive racial apologists and the low end of the butthurt sensitivity scale. Consequently I would not really care if you named a team the honkeys, however doing it would be a blantant typical progressive move to "Show people" how wrong they are. The concept of being intentionally offensive to prove a stupid point is more annoying than the actual name.

Also, to really go after me the team would have to be named the dagos, micks, guinea's wops, paddies, or something along that line.

This is an issue mostly to the progressive guilty chattering class, nothing more.

Well since you only find things offensive offensive according to the number of people who are offended my only advice is to think for yourself

 

[martybegan]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

Where do i say "all indians" have to be against it? I majority would make me take interest, a large majority may make me agree with them, but all the numbers point to this not being a big deal, except in the minds of the progressive racial apologists and the low end of the butthurt sensitivity scale. Consequently I would not really care if you named a team the honkeys, however doing it would be a blantant typical progressive move to "Show people" how wrong they are. The concept of being intentionally offensive to prove a stupid point is more annoying than the actual name.

Also, to really go after me the team would have to be named the dagos, micks, guinea's wops, paddies, or something along that line.

This is an issue mostly to the progressive guilty chattering class, nothing more.

Well since you only find things offensive offensive according to the number of people who are offended my only advice is to think for yourself

The whole point is if tons of people are offended by it, then maybe someone should listen. If its only a few people are offended then its on the offended people to man up a bit, and not on the concept that is offensive. Otherwise see my other post and change your user name.

 

[deltex1]

Uh oh....courtesy of Rush...

State name change needed...

"Oklahoma".... means "red people"

 

[kaz]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - Unknown

So why do you talk in absolutes for Indians but don't require absolutes about the team name Honkeys? All Indians aren't against it and neither are all whites. But you require all Indians to be against it while requiring a different standard for whites?

What you committed is logical fallacy called redefinition.

Marty was referring "intention" as the intent to offend, as in that Redskins are not intending to offend anyone, which matters.

You're referring to actions. Like the minimum wage isn't intended to destroy inner cities and prevent poor black kids from getting jobs, but it does. That is the path to hell you are on with your good intentions.

I understand that and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What its intent is and how its perceived is two different things. In this instance you are trying to make intent have more weight that perception.

So what you are not getting is that since a large majority of indians do not find the name offensive, the ones who are offended are self offending since they aren't drawing that offense from the community at large but are just choosing to be offended. By a sports team name that has no bearing on their lives. This is just typical, liberal self-victimization political correctness. No, there is no reason to care. If not for this, they would be offended at something else. You are a strange people, liberals.

 

[ron4342]

President Obama seems think that one of the more important issues out there is the name of the NFL team in Washington D.C. He seems to think that we should listen to a small percentage of people who are offended by the Redskin name instead of the majority who don't even see the racism in it. Obama open to name change for Washington Redskins | Fox News

Well, if that's the way they want to be then I am offended when Notre Dame calls themselves the Fighting Irish. That's racist. It assumes that all Irish are prone to violence. Seems whenever one atheist is offended by some religious artifact or one small group is offended about a teams name it shouldn't just be liberal's political action committees that get their way. Everyone should get their way.

Dummy, it is about money

 

[Foxfyre]

The Washington Firewaters?

The Washington Central Planners

Now THAT'S a terrifying name!

Evenmoreso, the Washington Community Organizers

 

[kaz]

Well since you only find things offensive offensive according to the number of people who are offended my only advice is to think for yourself

It's not just the number of people. It's also the who. In fact, I am not indifferent, but I am happy to offend the liberal stick up your ass crowd.

Ha ha