US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by nolanvt »

awesome guy wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:Too me it is a compliment to Indians and their heritage. So, from my perspective, I don't understand the outrage.
Exactly...As if someone would name themselves after something negative (Cavaliers not withstanding).
As a fellow redskin, I concur.


Nolan and Captain Bolderdash, do you have any skin in the game? Why do you get a vote on the nature of the term?
I'm mostly apathetic to team nicknames.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
False. Or you sure are vocal about something you claim to not care about.
As a fan, I favor changing the team name because I don't think the organization should be spending this much time, effort, and money on defending a name that will be changed eventually. Still wouldn't be surprised if Snyder ultimately leverages the name change for a taxpayer-funded stadium in the District (where he wants the team to move back to anyway after the current lease expires).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Cpt Jagdish
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:15 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: None of the above

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by Cpt Jagdish »

awesome guy wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:Too me it is a compliment to Indians and their heritage. So, from my perspective, I don't understand the outrage.
Exactly...As if someone would name themselves after something negative (Cavaliers not withstanding).
As a fellow redskin, I concur.


Nolan and Captain Bolderdash, do you have any skin in the game? Why do you get a vote on the nature of the term?

Meh, I'm not offended. I think you have selective reading or comprehension issues.

Here's a TL;DR for you: The term 'redskins' (football team aside) has/is a derogatory term. I don't find "Redskins" offensive because I don't think of Native Americans, I think of the football product. Pair that with Native American imagery and I find it sketchy because of the negative connotation of the word. I also am not a fan of making an ethnicity a mascot to be paraded around (unless they have given permission, Seminoles). I do not care to carry the banner for this movement though, if they keep it or don't keep it my life doesn't change nor do most people who are "affected" by it.

you said anyone who thinks redskins isn't derogatory is an asshole. Do you have selective reading or comprehension issues with that?
Ohh, touched a nerve I see. No I stand by that. Personally, I'm not offended by the word. But it has/is used as derogatory word, you said it yourself.

I used to be incredibly apathetic. My needle moved a bit when someone asked me two questions I didn't have a good answer for:

1) If the Washington Redskins never existed, and a professional sports team was being created, would the term "Redskins" even be remotely considered?

2) (racial slur censored by rule). That word has evolved to have so many meanings in so many different contexts. That in itself is an incredibly annoying conversation but what if a team wanted to name themselves the (racial slur censored by rule) or Negros but have a proud african american as their mascot. They could have murals of all the great achievements African Americans have made. Is that an acceptable scenario?
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by VisorBoy »

nolanvt wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:Too me it is a compliment to Indians and their heritage. So, from my perspective, I don't understand the outrage.
Exactly...As if someone would name themselves after something negative (Cavaliers not withstanding).
As a fellow redskin, I concur.


Nolan and Captain Bolderdash, do you have any skin in the game? Why do you get a vote on the nature of the term?
I'm mostly apathetic to team nicknames.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
False. Or you sure are vocal about something you claim to not care about.
As a fan, I favor changing the team name because I don't think the organization should be spending this much time, effort, and money on defending a name that will be changed eventually. Still wouldn't be surprised if Snyder ultimately leverages the name change for a taxpayer-funded stadium in the District (where he wants the team to move back to anyway after the current lease expires).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can see the practical reasoning, but that pales in comparison to the issue at hand, as I see it. If it's offensive, change it.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by awesome guy »

Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:Too me it is a compliment to Indians and their heritage. So, from my perspective, I don't understand the outrage.
Exactly...As if someone would name themselves after something negative (Cavaliers not withstanding).
As a fellow redskin, I concur.


Nolan and Captain Bolderdash, do you have any skin in the game? Why do you get a vote on the nature of the term?

Meh, I'm not offended. I think you have selective reading or comprehension issues.

Here's a TL;DR for you: The term 'redskins' (football team aside) has/is a derogatory term. I don't find "Redskins" offensive because I don't think of Native Americans, I think of the football product. Pair that with Native American imagery and I find it sketchy because of the negative connotation of the word. I also am not a fan of making an ethnicity a mascot to be paraded around (unless they have given permission, Seminoles). I do not care to carry the banner for this movement though, if they keep it or don't keep it my life doesn't change nor do most people who are "affected" by it.

you said anyone who thinks redskins isn't derogatory is an asshole. Do you have selective reading or comprehension issues with that?
Ohh, touched a nerve I see. No I stand by that. Personally, I'm not offended by the word. But it has/is used as derogatory word, you said it yourself.

I used to be incredibly apathetic. My needle moved a bit when someone asked me two questions I didn't have a good answer for:

1) If the Washington Redskins never existed, and a professional sports team was being created, would the term "Redskins" even be remotely considered?

2) (racial slur censored by rule). That word has evolved to have so many meanings in so many different contexts. That in itself is an incredibly annoying conversation but what if a team wanted to name themselves the (racial slur censored by rule) or Negros but have a proud african american as their mascot. They could have murals of all the great achievements African Americans have made. Is that an acceptable scenario?
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only there weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built an enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can't pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Last edited by awesome guy on Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by VisorBoy »

awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Does the UNCF offend a substantial portion of the black community? No. That's the key difference.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
Cpt Jagdish
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:15 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: None of the above

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by Cpt Jagdish »

awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.

Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by awesome guy »

VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Does the UNCF offend a substantial portion of the black community? No. That's the key difference.
would you call a black guy a negro? Highlander says a white using words like is justification to follow them around and harass the caller. Of course a black can say that as a greeting. 5150 said it was grounds for criminal arrest. So how can you say with a straight face that negro isn't derogatory? It's a million times more offensive than redskin could ever be.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
hokie80
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:11 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by hokie80 »

Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.



Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
So derogatory isn't the litmus test? Only if some find it offensive?

Puh-leze. Hello 1984
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by awesome guy »

Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.

Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
you're still an asshole as you're splitting hairs. And as I point out above, the defense of negro is idiotic.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by cwtcr hokie »

I am going to sue Nabisco as a lot of their products are called crackers. I am offended and large people are offended by the NY Giants, disgraceful
nolanvt wrote:It's over, Danny Boy...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/r ... s-canceled


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by awesome guy »

hokie80 wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.



Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
So derogatory isn't the litmus test? Only if some find it offensive?

Puh-leze. Hello 1984
derogatory is the litmus test, it just depends on how hard it hits the white guilt. They'll never say negro is offensive because attacking anything black cause the white guilt to flair up. Much more so than attacking Redskins as derogatory while at the same time taking the hysterical position that negro isn't derogatory.

So using the previous example, both VisroBoy and Captain Balderdash would walk into the east end of DC and say "what's up Negros!" when encountering black guys. It's not derogatory.


Addition: Their hypocrisy is also explained by them being afraid of blacks. Bak-bak chicken.
Last edited by awesome guy on Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Cpt Jagdish
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:15 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: None of the above

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by Cpt Jagdish »

awesome guy wrote:
hokie80 wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.



Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
So derogatory isn't the litmus test? Only if some find it offensive?

Puh-leze. Hello 1984
derogatory is the litmus test, it just depends on how hard it hits the white guilt. They'll never say negro is offensive because attacking anything black cause the white guilt to flair up. Much more so than attacking Redskins as derogatory while at the same time taking the hysterical position that negro isn't derogatory.

So using the previous example, both VisroBoy and Captain Balderdash would walk into the east end of DC and say "what's up Negros!" when encountering black guys. It's not derogatory.

Okay, didn't want to go down the negro route. But I think it's a antiquated term that is derogatory.
hokie80
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:11 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by hokie80 »

Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
hokie80 wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.



Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
So derogatory isn't the litmus test? Only if some find it offensive?

Puh-leze. Hello 1984
derogatory is the litmus test, it just depends on how hard it hits the white guilt. They'll never say negro is offensive because attacking anything black cause the white guilt to flair up. Much more so than attacking Redskins as derogatory while at the same time taking the hysterical position that negro isn't derogatory.

So using the previous example, both VisroBoy and Captain Balderdash would walk into the east end of DC and say "what's up Negros!" when encountering black guys. It's not derogatory.

Okay, didn't want to go down the negro route. But I think it's a antiquated term that is derogatory.
So what is the litmus test on banning a name?

If I get enough fellow Irishmen together and demand that the team Fighting Irish stop using that derogatory name, should they be forced to do so?
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by awesome guy »

hokie80 wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
hokie80 wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.



Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
So derogatory isn't the litmus test? Only if some find it offensive?

Puh-leze. Hello 1984
derogatory is the litmus test, it just depends on how hard it hits the white guilt. They'll never say negro is offensive because attacking anything black cause the white guilt to flair up. Much more so than attacking Redskins as derogatory while at the same time taking the hysterical position that negro isn't derogatory.

So using the previous example, both VisroBoy and Captain Balderdash would walk into the east end of DC and say "what's up Negros!" when encountering black guys. It's not derogatory.

Okay, didn't want to go down the negro route. But I think it's a antiquated term that is derogatory.
So what is the litmus test on banning a name?

If I get enough fellow Irishmen together and demand that the team Fighting Irish stop using that derogatory name, should they be forced to do so?

it depends. The only people with Indian ancestry on this board aren't offended by Redskins and don't think it's derogatory. Yet the lily white catholic and white/asian guys are and they think their offense overrides our view. So as with all liberals, what they want is right because they want it. It doesn't have to make sense, it's what they want.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Cpt Jagdish
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:15 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: None of the above

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by Cpt Jagdish »

hokie80 wrote: So what is the litmus test on banning a name?
I don't know what the litmus test is. Questions like that are one of the reasons why most of the discussion on this board goes nowhere because it's absolutes with too many people. Black and white. Hard lines drawn. Look at awesomeguy, Nolan has flat out said he doesnt care if they change their name but AG has to keep up the good fight. I have no idea what the litmus test would be.
If I get enough fellow Irishmen together and demand that the team Fighting Irish stop using that derogatory name, should they be forced to do so?
Forced? I don't think anyone should force the Redskins to change their name. But if a group of Irishmen had a compelling argument that the name be changed, I think it's worthy of the discussion. I don't believe the Native Americans who are upset by this name aren't upset solely because it hurts their whittle feelings.

This is actually my last comment on this because I see people have dug in and aren't willing to be consider others in their decision making. I do not care one way or the other if the Redskins change their name. I would never refer to someone as a redskin because I know the term to be derogatory. And I don't think anyone here would except for Oakton's internet persona. That's why I think the team should change their name but I don't care if they do because...white privilege. No skin off my back.
Last edited by Cpt Jagdish on Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by VisorBoy »

hokie80 wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
hokie80 wrote:
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
I think both of your examples are stupid. For example, you haven't complained about the United Negro College Fund or any other organization that already has Negro in it's name and it is trademarked. And the other stupid aspect is the dismissal of time. When the Redskins got their trademark, there no one considered it derogatory. Much like today, only their weren't any activists after it either. So they got their trademark and built and enterprise around it. The government can't come in and retroactively remove trademarks after they've been used for decades. Some activist getting butthurt today is no justification to remove what had been operated under for decades without issue. And that's why negro still stands in other trademarks. You can pull a trademark just because some idiot wants to think it is now derogatory.

Given that you don't think the term is offensive, we can conclude you too think yourself an asshole? Finally something we can agree on!
Visor addressed negro.



Again, selective reading on your part. I personally am not offended by the term. Is it a derogatory term, yes.
So derogatory isn't the litmus test? Only if some find it offensive?

Puh-leze. Hello 1984
derogatory is the litmus test, it just depends on how hard it hits the white guilt. They'll never say negro is offensive because attacking anything black cause the white guilt to flair up. Much more so than attacking Redskins as derogatory while at the same time taking the hysterical position that negro isn't derogatory.

So using the previous example, both VisroBoy and Captain Balderdash would walk into the east end of DC and say "what's up Negros!" when encountering black guys. It's not derogatory.

Okay, didn't want to go down the negro route. But I think it's a antiquated term that is derogatory.
So what is the litmus test on banning a name?

If I get enough fellow Irishmen together and demand that the team Fighting Irish stop using that derogatory name, should they be forced to do so?
I already mentioned the litmus test.
1. Is the term derogatory?
2. Does the term offend a substantial portion of the population it references?

- Fighting Irish is a toss-up on #1 and is a definite "No" on #2.
- UNCF is a "Yes" on #1 and a definite "No" on #2.
- If I call my older brother an idiot, that is a "Yes" on #1 but a definite "No" on #2.
- If I call a stranger an idiot, that is a "Yes" on #1 and a "Yes" on #2. Therefore, I shouldn't do it.
- The term in question is a "Yes" on #1 and a "Yes" on #2. Therefore it should be changed.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by RiverguyVT »

I heard it explained in a manner once that i could see support for the name change.
Should the change be forced upon the owners? Meh. No.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by awesome guy »

Cpt Jagdish wrote:
hokie80 wrote: So what is the litmus test on banning a name?
I don't know what the litmus test is. Questions like that are one of the reasons why most of the discussion on this board goes nowhere because it's absolutes with too many people. Black and white. Hard lines drawn. Look at awesomeguy, Nolan has flat out said he doesnt care if they change their name but AG has to keep up the good fight. I have no idea what the litmus test would be.
If I get enough fellow Irishmen together and demand that the team Fighting Irish stop using that derogatory name, should they be forced to do so?
Forced? I don't think anyone should force the Redskins to change their name. But if a group of Irishmen had a compelling argument that the name be changed, I think it's worthy of the discussion. I don't believe the Native Americans who are upset by this name aren't upset solely because it hurts their whittle feelings.

This is actually my last comment on this because I see people have dug in and aren't willing to be consider others in their decision making. I do not care one way or the other if the Redskins change their name. I would never refer to someone as a redskin because I know the term to be derogatory. And I don't think anyone here would except for Oakton's internet persona. That's why I think the team should change their name but I don't care if they do because...white privilege. No skin off my back.
Nolan says he doesn't care, but then cheerleads the change at every turn. So he says one thing and behaves another. I'm going with behavior to judge actually caring or not.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Homebrew
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:20 pm

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by Homebrew »

To chime in late here, the TTAB ruling be overturned by a Federal Court as the plantiffs did not submit sufficient evidence.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by HokieJoe »

Cpt Jagdish wrote:"Redskins" is a derogatory term. Anyone who doesn't think so is an asshole.

My grey area with this whole ordeal is that I've lived in the DC metro area my whole life. When I think of Redskins I rarely ever think of Native Americans, I always think of the football team. Not until this whole conflict with the name being derogatory did I really think about the name itself and it's connection.

I think an easy compromise for Danny would be to drop the native american connotation. Ethnic groups shouldn't be used as mascots unless they specifically are okay with it (ie the seminole tribe). If that's the issue, just drop any connection to Native Americans.

Anybody who complains about it is a drama queen with too much time on their hands. Tribal lands are third-world ghettos in many instances; and THIS is the issue they decide to plant their flag on? Idiotic. Get perspective. It's an irrelevant issue in a world brimming with REAL issues. This will accomplish nothing for American Indians except get some publicity for Al Sharpton types. Congrats for helping ruin the world just a little more by focusing on idiotic issues.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

Post by HokieJoe »

USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:from now on, they're the Pale Faces! Or the non-native Americans.
There are no "native" Americans. It should be "earliest arriving Americans"...they just got here first.
It's funny that you would be so sensitive to that distinction, yet fail to see how the term "Redskin" could be offensive. Actually not funny, just par for the course.
Who said I was sensitive to the term? I simply recognize that my ancestor immigrated here as well...before the others. As for "Redskins", do I see how it could be offensive? Sure. Is it offensive to most...including "native Americans? No. Certainly no reason for the government to get involved in the matter.
OK. You and Awesome Guy agree on this issue.
Lawyers are offensive to more people - can we ban them?

Even better would be to socialize the legal system. They'll all work for Uncle Sam, get equal pay, and nobody with talent will be a lawyer.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Post Reply