|
Michael Strahah has come out in support of same-sex marriage, ESPN did a story, and the comments section is really something else to read. Anything that is political is always fun. http://sports.espn.go.com/newyork/conversations/_/id/6649146/michael-strahan-latest-support-ny-same-sex-marriage
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
Dominion posted:Ugh. The number of my friends who are Skins fans and bend over backwards to try to justify the name is depressing. I've heard the "It's not racist because they asked some Indians and they said it was fine" argument, and the "It's in honor of some specific Indians, so using a slur is ok because we're honoring them" one. No one seems to get that it's roughly as bad as having a team called the Washington Negroes. You know, as much as it makes sense to change the name, the most surprising thing I always find is just how little controversy the name seems to garner. They even polled the Native American population and found that only 9% found it offensive. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf So while it seems intuitive to say that it's really offensive, the reality is more complex than that. EDIT: Not saying it shouldn't be changed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2011 08:06
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Well, fair enough. I suppose the next question is whether or not it's ok to keep a team name that offends 5-12% of the racial group it refers to. That's a fair question. But it's not fair to say that those who don't find it offensive are racist or to say that there's any clear cut answer as to whether the name can be written as clearly offensive in the social sense. Is 9% enough? There's plenty of room for debate. Democrazy fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jul 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:From caste football: I just read that and thought, "Man, what if Jamarcus had tried for baseball instead of football?"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2011 05:54
|
|