|
Sash! posted:I actually side with the "quit whining and play your football for millions" crowd but they're so terrible at arguing that I don't want to associate with them. So who do you side with when the owners are the ones whining and not playing football? I always want to ask the "but I can't ask my boss for more money!" folks what they would do if their boss just came up and told them he decided he wanted more money so he was giving them a 5% pay cut. quote:I just realized that it would be so easy for the Redskins to change their name to the Hogs and get rid of all that old-timey racism while still having a name with tradition behind it. They really are that stubborn though. 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. And no one will take seriously my suggestion to change the name to the Beltway Snipers. JoshTheStampede fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jul 2, 2011 |
#
¿
Jul 2, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Democrazy posted: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. They polled 768 Native Americans. There's about 3 million Native Americans living in the US, according to the 2010 census. That's not really much of a sample size.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Detroit_Dogg posted:RIP Eastern Michigan Hurons, you were too good for this world. See, Hurons doesn't bother me. It's not a slur, it's an actual name of a group of people. It would be like calling your team the Floridians or the Southerners. It's not offensive at all. Redskin is a racial slur. That's why it's offensive and the Chiefs isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
BigJake posted:I too have no understanding of how statistics work Do you really think a sample size of 800 allows one to accurately represent the opinions of 3 million people, to the point where you would feel comfortable saying "No, it's cool, we asked the indians and they said it was not offensive"?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
BigJake posted:A sample of 768 out of a population of 3 million yields a margin of error of about 3.6% at 95% confidence. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:Dan Snyder doesn't care about red people. Redskin or red man is on par with calling an asian person yellow. It's not a super-charged hateful term like some other racial slurs but it's not something you'd be ok calling someone casually without expecting them to get offended.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
Spiral Architect posted:I think this may be my favorite. I thought all racists on that site thought that blacks were supposed to be better athletes based on genetics. Nope, this guy can't even handle that kind of racism. He has to go to a whole different level. Caste football is a special kind of racist, where they believe blacks are dumb and valued only for their athletic prowess, but also that white athletes are superior. Basically they think all blacks are good athletes but dumb, so the elite white athletes are inherently better because they can ALSO be smart and not lazy and shiftless or uppity or whatever code words they use.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Morby posted:Another one from al.com, this time from the comments section of an article posted about the Ohio State debacle. Nick Saban is the only person involved in football to ever smack a player on the rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2011 03:58
|
|