Palefaces: Redskins' Name OK

[Rough Carrigan]

You said you were done, and yet now that a little spark has lit in that deep, dank cavern you call a head you come rushing back?

There is no such thing as "reverse racism". It is a construct perpetuated by people who are insecure about losing something they don't rightly have and is a dogwhistle for the more vile elements of the xenophobic right; it fails to understand the power dynamics involved. Literally everyone who unironically uses the term lets their fuckhead flag fly high as they weep for those poor, poor powerful white people.

Are white people really such a monolithic group that the statement above isn't more than a bit cartoonish even as it's mocking an opposing view as cartoonish?  There are more white people on welfare than any other group.  There are more poor white people than poor blacks or hispanics.  Does some dirt poor occasional meth dealer in Kentucky get anything out of Bill Gates' wealth or that of any other rich white guy?  You can argue that the system is stacked even worse against a black guy.  Sure.  But does being one rung off the bottom of the ladder give him anything at all in common with a wealthy white guy?  At least it gives us all poor people we can hate with impunity.  Pffew!

 

[Blacken]

You're touching on intersectionality, which is definitely something that is not always taken into account. It's something to be mindful of for sure. As far as this discussion goes, though, it's not particularly meaningful. Ceteris paribus, a straight white dude has social advantages over a black dude (or a white woman, or a transsexual man, or a gay white man, or a Hispanic man, etc.).

A rich (or even middle-class, like the jerkoff posting above) white dude has a lot of advantages--usually encapsulated in the term privilege, but that gets eyerolls because it's been co-opted by the social justice warrior crowd into being a bludgeon rather than a description--over the natives whose ancestors we tried to exterminate and he should shut the fuck up about how he's being oppressed by weverse wacism.

 

[Reverend]

This is getting pretty V&N re: reverse racism. While you may not buy that argument it's gotten traction with a few on SCOTUS and it's commonly argued at the circuits... I don't take issue with you disagreeing with it, Blacken, but I think dismissing it altogether is a bit much.

edit: If I put my own neck out there I personally favor diversity from race and socio economic background. So while I don't agree with the race can't be a factor at all I don't think it is the be all and end all to determine a good diverse mix. I strongly disagree with dismissing a main stream argument, even if I disagree with it, because how the hell do you have that conversation in the first place if you won't discuss any possible merits or truths in their side?

 
There have been some V&N type issues discussed in this thread, but I think it's fundamentally an NFL issue that happens to have V&N type elements in the arguments. It happens.
 
Basically, I think the whole "is racism against white people" acceptable now is a red herring, which is what would be what I would call annoying except that it's so pernicious. We use the expression "making fun of" for both the light hearted ribbing of the alpha-male quarterback in the locker room and for the abuse heaped upon the loser outcast of the class, but they are not the same.
 
I think in most, if not all forums, callousness towards the harm heaped upon an historically subjugated group of people would be met with push back, and I don't really see that as a bad thing.

 

[Blacken]

I like you.

 

[Reverend]

You're touching on intersectionality, which is definitely something that is not always taken into account. It's something to be mindful of for sure. As far as this discussion goes, though, it's not particularly meaningful. Ceteris paribus, a straight white dude has social advantages over a black dude (or a white woman, or a gay white man, or a straight Hispanic man, etc.).

A rich (or even middle-class, like the jerkoff posting above) white dude has a lot of advantages--usually encapsulated in the term privilege, but that gets eyerolls because it's been co-opted by the social justice warrior crowd into being a bludgeon rather than a description--over the natives whose ancestors we tried to exterminate and he should shut the fuck up about how he's being oppressed by weverse wacism.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5goIqq4QjU

 

[Reverend]

I like you.

 
FTW:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdQg7jTXUt8

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Because the key word was "racism".

 

[Infield Infidel]

 
FTW:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdQg7jTXUt8

 
I always love the Colorado Rockies logo Chris Rock used in his HBO specials

 

[soxhop411]

 
Every Monday morning, we take a stroll through Peter King’s Monday Morning Quarterback column in search of nuggets that fit within our never-ending non-stop shop of NFL news and whatnot.  Today, we found a potent piece of whatnot buried in the column.
Off for the last month or so, King dropped the following bombshell in the 10 things he thinks:  “I think the Washington franchise will have a new team name by 2016.”
With a Ruthian finger to the outfield bleachers, the reporter who no longer has a Ruthian physique became the first national media type to put a date certain on change.  In fact, other than Senator Harry Reid (who has predicted a change within three years), we can’t think of any other prominent person who has provided a timetable for changing the name.
While King’s “I think” feature often has a wistful, speculative quality, he doesn’t throw dirt.  He typically has heard something specific that makes him think what he thinks.
“I know things,” he’ll often say to me when we get together before a Sunday slate of games, with a twinkle in his eye that may or may not be attributable in whole or in part to caffeine.
Chances are that, in saying that the name will change by 2016, King has indeed been told something by someone in position to know the truth that the current plan is for the name to change by 2016.
It’s a tight timetable, and it suggests that the NFL and/or the team have moved much closer to deciding that it no longer makes sense to have a lingering (and intensifying) debate regarding whether the name of one of the NFL’s 32 franchises is racially offensive.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/21/king-washington-will-have-a-new-name-by-2016/?utm_source=TW%20-%20NBC%20Sports%20-%20SNF%20-%20%40SNFonNBC&utm_network=twitter&utm_post=2872067&utm_tags=

 

[bsj]

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but starting to see these ads popping up
 
http://www.redskinsfacts.com/

 

[DJnVa]

This is available on a shirt, ostensibly to show you how hurtful the logo is. I don't think it accomplishes that.
 

 

[hbk72777]

You're touching on intersectionality, which is definitely something that is not always taken into account. It's something to be mindful of for sure. As far as this discussion goes, though, it's not particularly meaningful. Ceteris paribus, a straight white dude has social advantages over a black dude (or a white woman, or a transsexual man, or a gay white man, or a Hispanic man, etc.).

A rich (or even middle-class, like the jerkoff posting above) white dude has a lot of advantages--usually encapsulated in the term privilege, but that gets eyerolls because it's been co-opted by the social justice warrior crowd into being a bludgeon rather than a description--over the natives whose ancestors we tried to exterminate and he should shut the fuck up about how he's being oppressed by weverse wacism.

 
 
Put down the Chomsky pamphlets and think for yourself

 

[ALiveH]

I'm glad my comments stirred up Blacken so much.  He should probably work through his issues.  why so angry?
 
I'd like to have an intellectually honest conversation and ask some questions without being insulted and told to shut the f up.  Glad to see the true colors: preach tolerance when it suits you and exhibit quite the opposite when it doesn't.  You make quite a lot of assumptions about me, most of which are wrong.
 
Also, there are plenty of white straight males who were historically subjugated.
 
I suppose you're right that there's no such thing as reverse racism.  l really should call anti-white racism normal racism from now on.  Quick question: Why is it that if someone insults white people as a race it's not racism but if someone insults native americans as a race it is racism?  In your answer you aren't allowed to cite "white privilege" for a variety of reasons: not all whites are privileged (that would be making an assumption about a whole race); some whites were historically subjugated.

 

[Reverend]

I'm glad my comments stirred up Blacken so much.  He should probably work through his issues.  why so angry?
 
I'd like to have an intellectually honest conversation and ask some questions without being insulted and told to shut the f up.  Glad to see the true colors: preach tolerance when it suits you and exhibit quite the opposite when it doesn't.  You make quite a lot of assumptions about me, most of which are wrong.
 
Also, there are plenty of white straight males who were historically subjugated.
 
I suppose you're right that there's no such thing as reverse racism.  l really should call anti-white racism normal racism from now on.  Quick question: Why is it that if someone insults white people as a race it's not racism but if someone insults native americans as a race it is racism?  In your answer you aren't allowed to cite "white privilege" for a variety of reasons: not all whites are privileged (that would be making an assumption about a whole race); some whites were historically subjugated.

 
If you actually care about this stuff, start a thread in V&N, yeah? What you are getting at is a valid subject for discussion and debate but is only tangentially related to the issue of Washington's NFL franchise name which we know has roots in a pejorative.
 
In all seriousness, it would likely be a spirited and informative discussion, as long as nobody invokes obscure mythic demons that is.

 

[mauf]

Also, there are plenty of white straight males who were historically subjugated.
 
I suppose you're right that there's no such thing as reverse racism.  l really should call anti-white racism normal racism from now on.  Quick question: Why is it that if someone insults white people as a race it's not racism but if someone insults native americans as a race it is racism?  In your answer you aren't allowed to cite "white privilege" for a variety of reasons: not all whites are privileged (that would be making an assumption about a whole race); some whites were historically subjugated.

200 years ago, Irish weren't considered white.
100 years ago, Italians weren't considered white.
50 years ago, Jews weren't considered white.

There's no such thing as a "white race." Saying that someone is white is tantamount to saying they aren't subject to pervasive, systematic discrimination in our society.

 

[Leather]

Perpetuating racist ideas toward minorities is problematic because they are minorities in society, and as such don't have the luxury of being able to shrug off racism as an intellectual annoyance. A white person being mocked for being "white" can ignore it with the comfort that such an idea is never going to impact them in any real way. Blacks, native americans, etc.. don't have that luxury. Racism a threat.

 

[JayMags71]

(T)here are plenty of white straight males who were historically subjugated.
 
...Quick question: Why is it that if someone insults white people as a race it's not racism but if someone insults native americans as a race it is racism?  In your answer you aren't allowed to cite "white privilege" for a variety of reasons: not all whites are privileged (that would be making an assumption about a whole race); some whites were historically subjugated.

Just because "some whites were historically subjugated" doesn't negate the the fact, that for generations, the power structure of our country was set up to keep people of color powerless. And though you may choose to deny it, the effects are still with us today. So, when you say Blacken "isn't allowed to cite 'white privilege'" you're doing the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALALALALALA ICANTHEAAAARYOUUUU".

Just 'cause you don't like the answers doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

[Blacken]

Put down the Chomsky pamphlets and think for yourself

Ooh, aren't you quite the little iconoclast.

 

[Blacken]

I think in most, if not all forums, callousness towards the harm heaped upon an historically subjugated group of people would be met with push back, and I don't really see that as a bad thing.

I enjoy that the general population of SoSH understands that calling a woman by a crude term for her vagina is shitty but it's totally cool to institutionalize and enshrine shittiness towards an entire race of people that we've already fucked out of basically everything they ever had.

 

[Montana Fan]

If a fella can draw the ire and righteous indignation of Leather, Blacken and Jaymags all in one page of a single thread, he's pretty much reached the nadir of his existence. Draw Laddie out too and you'd be the Grand Salami of posters.

 

[Tony C]

Heh. Can someone please either move this thread to V & N or lock it? If there's anything worse than pseudo-intellectuals getting self-righteous, it's doing so on a football board that is meant to be a respite from such. About once every two weeks I click on this thread thinking maybe there is some new development and all of a sudden I remember.....oh, right...that's this trainwreck of a thread.
 

 

[wibi]

Heh. Can someone please either move this thread to V & N or lock it? If there's anything worse than pseudo-intellectuals getting self-righteous, it's doing so on a football board that is meant to be a respite from such. About once every two weeks I click on this thread thinking maybe there is some new development and all of a sudden I remember.....oh, right...that's this trainwreck of a thread.
 

 
Dont you have that ability with the DOPE tag?

 

[soxfan121]

Orange tag DOPES are kinda like emeritus professors at SoSH University. They could do anything but they don't have to do anything. It is enough to note that things should be removed, forthwith, from the lawn in a stern manner while relying that eventually someone will come along to actually get the crap off his lawn. 

 

[CaptainLaddie]

If a fella can draw the ire and righteous indignation of Leather, Blacken and Jaymags all in one page of a single thread, he's pretty much reached the nadir of his existence. Draw Laddie out too and you'd be the Grand Salami of posters.

Eat my ass with a spoon and a jar of Welch's grape jelly.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Did he mean zenith instead of nadir?

 

[soxfan121]

Did he mean zenith instead of nadir?

 
One man's zenith can be another man's nadir.
 
Grasshopper.

 

[Dogman]

Eat my ass with a spoon and a jar of Welch's grape jelly.

 
 
Peanut butter ass.  To bad there isn't a dog around when you need one.

 

[Reverend]

I prefer syrup.

 

[Tony C]

 
Dont you have that ability with the DOPE tag?

 
I suppose I do! Figure it's someone else's domain, but happy to do so since we're at the zenith of this thread's nadir.
 
p.s., I do have to add that this:
 

Orange tag DOPES are kinda like emeritus professors at SoSH University. They could do anything but they don't have to do anything. It is enough to note that things should be removed, forthwith, from the lawn in a stern manner while relying that eventually someone will come along to actually get the crap off his lawn.

 
made me laugh....touche, I must admit!

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Ooof. I'm responsible for not checking on this thread AT ALL.