|
|
Post by bluerisk on Dec 15, 2020 19:35:07 GMT
Is it? Article says 2016. Regardless, it's bullshit. Then there's this. Do you think this list of entire tribes and native organizations is a better representation of how native peoples feel about the name, as opposed to people called at random who may not even be Native American? When I think of PETA and Co...no, absolutely not. How many members do they have, who is financing them, what is their actual agenda?!
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 19:45:23 GMT
Is it? Article says 2016. Regardless, it's bullshit. Then there's this. Do you think this list of entire tribes and native organizations is a better representation of how native peoples feel about the name, as opposed to people called at random who may not even be Native American?
- 80% responded that they would NOT be personally offended if a Non-Native American referred to them as a "Redskin".
- A smaller sample of 340 respondents was asked if the term "redskin" is disrespectful to Native Americans, with 73% responding "No".en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls#:~:text=The%20researchers%20found%20that%2049,%2C%20and%2013%25%20were%20indifferent. |
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Dec 15, 2020 19:48:05 GMT
Allow me to step in. I already broke this down last year, remember? And let's keep in mind the Patriots lost at home last year in week 17 to the Dolphins (because billychuck's defense couldn't stop a 3-12 team from marching down the field and scoring a TD in the closing seconds), which cost the Pats a bye. After all this, let me know which season you think the Patriots benefitted from their division. Better yet, explain why they benefit from their division when they beat every other division at the same clip. Come up with an actual argument, it's all I ask. In 2018-19 the Patriots were the only team in the AFC East that had a winning record. They lost a division game in mid-December, how did that help them? It ended up costing them the #1 seed, otherwise they would've finished 12-4, tied with the Chiefs (who the Patriots beat in the regular season). Didn't matter, the Pats won the AFC championship game in Arrowhead anyway. They lost to 5 teams with a losing record that year, go figure. They also beat 4 playoff teams with at least 10 wins, including two 12 win teams. Their division sure helped them out though. Bad teams did better against them that year than good ones did! So I'll ask again, which season do you think the Patriots benefitted from their division? A genuine argument, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Dec 15, 2020 19:48:26 GMT
Allow me to step in. I already broke this down last year, remember? And let's keep in mind the Patriots lost at home last year in week 17 to the Dolphins (because billychuck's defense couldn't stop a 3-12 team from marching down the field and scoring a TD in the closing seconds), which cost the Pats a bye. After all this, let me know which season you think the Patriots benefitted from their division. Better yet, explain why they benefit from their division when they beat every other division at the same clip. Come up with an actual argument, it's all I ask. In 2018-19 the Patriots were the only team in the AFC East that had a winning record. So? The Saints have been in a division with no one else above .500 and it hasn't helped them at all. So it would appear this theory doesn't amount to much. |
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Dec 15, 2020 19:50:33 GMT
Is it? Article says 2016. Regardless, it's bullshit. Then there's this. Do you think this list of entire tribes and native organizations is a better representation of how native peoples feel about the name, as opposed to people called at random who may not even be Native American? When I think of PETA and Co...no, absolutely not. How many members do they have, who is financing them, what is their actual agenda?! Another guy made this argument a few years ago. What is their actual agenda? Good question. I'll let you ponder the agenda of tribal leaders when asked whether they're offended by racist language.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 19:53:17 GMT
In 2018-19 the Patriots were the only team in the AFC East that had a winning record. They lost a division game in mid-December, how did that help them? It ended up costing them the #1 seed, otherwise they would've finished 12-4, tied with the Chiefs (who the Patriots beat in the regular season). Didn't matter, the Pats won the AFC championship game in Arrowhead anyway. They lost to 5 teams with a losing record that year, go figure. They also beat 4 playoff teams with at least 10 wins, including two 12 win teams. Their division sure helped them out though. Bad teams did better against them that year than good ones did! So I'll ask again, which season do you think the Patriots benefitted from their division? A genuine argument, please. So what? Last year the Saints lost at home to the Falcons. The Saints finished 12-3. And the Falcons finished 7-9. |
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Dec 15, 2020 19:56:44 GMT
Is it? Article says 2016. Regardless, it's bullshit. Then there's this. Do you think this list of entire tribes and native organizations is a better representation of how native peoples feel about the name, as opposed to people called at random who may not even be Native American?
- 80% responded that they would not be personally offended if a Non-Native American referred to them as a "Redskin".
- A smaller sample of 340 respondents was asked if the term "redskin" is disrespectful to Native Americans, with 73% responding "No".en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls#:~:text=The%20researchers%20found%20that%2049,%2C%20and%2013%25%20were%20indifferent. Literally the next few sentences after your first point: Did you miss that, or leave it out intentionally hoping nobody would read the article? I already covered the rest of your points, the polls have proven erroneous, and the various tribal councils and native organizations add up to more than 340 respondents (who may or may not be native in the first place). You argue this as well as you argue football.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 19:57:01 GMT
In 2018-19 the Patriots were the only team in the AFC East that had a winning record. So? The Saints have been in a division with no one else above .500 and it hasn't helped them at all. So it would appear this theory doesn't amount to much. Sure it helped them. They had 6 relatively easy games every year. And no pressure within their division. |
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Dec 15, 2020 19:58:47 GMT
They lost a division game in mid-December, how did that help them? It ended up costing them the #1 seed, otherwise they would've finished 12-4, tied with the Chiefs (who the Patriots beat in the regular season). Didn't matter, the Pats won the AFC championship game in Arrowhead anyway. They lost to 5 teams with a losing record that year, go figure. They also beat 4 playoff teams with at least 10 wins, including two 12 win teams. Their division sure helped them out though. Bad teams did better against them that year than good ones did! So I'll ask again, which season do you think the Patriots benefitted from their division? A genuine argument, please. So what? Last year the Saints lost at home to the Falcons. The Saints finished 12-3. And the Falcons finished 7-9. You mean 13-3? Anyway, so what? So the Patriots won the Super Bowl after playing three playoff games against teams that finished with a better record than they did. They won the AFC championship game on the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 20:01:53 GMT
Polls targeting Native Americans- The authors of the article concluded that "Although most Native American activists and tribal leaders consider Indian team names and mascots offensive, neither Native Americans in general nor a cross section of U.S. sports fans agree". According to the article, "There is a near total disconnect between Indian activists and the Native American population on this issue."[14]
- 80% responded that they would NOT be personally offended if a Non-Native American referred to them as a "Redskin".
- A smaller sample of 340 respondents was asked if the term "redskin" is disrespectful to Native Americans, with 73% responding "No".en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls#:~:text=The%20researchers%20found%20that%2049,%2C%20and%2013%25%20were%20indifferent. Literally the next few sentences after your first point: Did you miss that, or leave it out intentionally hoping nobody would read the article? I already covered the rest of your points, the polls have proven erroneous, and the various tribal councils and native organizations add up to more than 340 respondents (who may or may not be native in the first place). You argue this as well as you argue football. That means nothing. Of course some politically correct, guilty white Americans are gonna argue against it, because it doesn't fit their desired narrative. If I didn't want you to read the article, I wouldn't have posted the link. If I argue this as well as I argue sports, I must be winning. Because I've cleaned your clock in every debate we've had on every topic so far. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 20:05:54 GMT
So what? Last year the Saints lost at home to the Falcons. The Saints finished 12-3. And the Falcons finished 7-9. You mean 13-3? Anyway, so what? So the Patriots won the Super Bowl after playing three playoff games against teams that finished with a better record than they did. They won the AFC championship game on the road. (I'm on a little tiny cellphone. I meant to post 13-3. But I have big fat fingers on little tiny buttons.) I never said the Patriots weren't good or deserving. I only said they benefited from being in a weak division. |
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Dec 15, 2020 20:14:13 GMT
Literally the next few sentences after your first point: Did you miss that, or leave it out intentionally hoping nobody would read the article? I already covered the rest of your points, the polls have proven erroneous, and the various tribal councils and native organizations add up to more than 340 respondents (who may or may not be native in the first place). You argue this as well as you argue football. That means nothing. Of course some politically correct guilty white Americans are gonna argue against it because it doesn't fit their desired narrative. If I didn't want you to read the article, I wouldn't have posted the link. If I argue this as well as I argue sports, I must be winning. Because I've cleaned your clock in every debate we've had on every topic so far. Of course some asshole is going to argue Redskins isn't racist because the truth makes him uncomfortable. Worse, it would cause him to change his perspective. It's a lot easier to assume you're always right than it is to consider your own ignorance. (And the ones who feel guilty are the ones in denial. I know you know that, too.) It's right here in your posts, whether it's football or this topic; I post factual evidence, you post your opinion, backed by nothing. One of your bullet points is debunked in the very article you linked, but you use half the quote to try to prove a point you can't make. You argue like a nine year old. Hey, maybe if you appeal to my pride with goofy comments about 'cleaning my clock,' you can make the argument about nothing but the argument itself and everyone will lose track of the fact that you've been proven 100% wrong and have no idea what you're talking about in either topic. Indian sports nicknames are racist and are disappearing before your eyes; The Patriots kept winning no matter who they were playing in the Tom Brady era; the Saints shit the bed in the playoffs on a regular basis. These are all absolute facts, not opinions, whether you like it or not. Come up with some new material.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 20:23:21 GMT
That means nothing. Of course some politically correct, guilty white Americans are gonna argue against it, because it doesn't fit their desired narrative. If I didn't want you to read the article, I wouldn't have posted the link. If I argue this as well as I argue sports, I must be winning. Because I've cleaned your clock in every debate we've had on every topic so far. Of course some asshole is going to argue Redskins isn't racist because the truth makes him uncomfortable. Worse, it would cause him to change his perspective. It's a lot easier to assume you're always right than it is to consider your own ignorance. (And the ones who feel guilty are the ones in denial. I know you know that, too.) It's right here in your posts, whether it's football or this topic; I post factual evidence, you post your opinion, backed by nothing. One of your bullet points is debunked in the very article you linked, but you use half the quote to try to prove a point you can't make. You argue like a nine year old. Hey, maybe if you appeal to my pride with goofy comments about 'cleaning my clock,' you can make the argument about nothing but the argument itself and everyone will lose track of the fact that you've been proven 100% wrong and have no idea what you're talking about in either topic. Indian sports nicknames are racist and are disappearing before your eyes; The Patriots kept winning no matter who they were playing in the Tom Brady era; the Saints shit the bed in the playoffs on a regular basis. These are all absolute facts, not opinions, whether you like it or not. Come up with some new material. I agree, the Redskins should change their mascot name. Because the team wants to be referred to as winners. These "redskins" are and were obviously losers. Because they not only lost the war for America with the white man. But they are consumate babies who are so sensitive about it, they won't even allow the white man to use them as a compliment referring to them as brave, heroic and vicious fighters. We should erase them from history because obviously they were an extremely insignificant group of people who were so primitive, they were gonna lose the Americas sooner or later, to somebody or something, inevitably. |
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Dec 15, 2020 21:07:38 GMT
Of course some asshole is going to argue Redskins isn't racist because the truth makes him uncomfortable. Worse, it would cause him to change his perspective. It's a lot easier to assume you're always right than it is to consider your own ignorance. (And the ones who feel guilty are the ones in denial. I know you know that, too.) It's right here in your posts, whether it's football or this topic; I post factual evidence, you post your opinion, backed by nothing. One of your bullet points is debunked in the very article you linked, but you use half the quote to try to prove a point you can't make. You argue like a nine year old. Hey, maybe if you appeal to my pride with goofy comments about 'cleaning my clock,' you can make the argument about nothing but the argument itself and everyone will lose track of the fact that you've been proven 100% wrong and have no idea what you're talking about in either topic. Indian sports nicknames are racist and are disappearing before your eyes; The Patriots kept winning no matter who they were playing in the Tom Brady era; the Saints shit the bed in the playoffs on a regular basis. These are all absolute facts, not opinions, whether you like it or not. Come up with some new material. I agree, the Redskins should change their mascot name. Because the team wants to be referred to as winners. These "redskins" are and were obviously losers. Because they not only lost the war for America with the white man. But they are consumate babies who are so sensitive about it, they won't even allow the white man to use them as a compliment referring to them as brave, heroic and vicious fighters. We should erase them from history because obviously they were an extremely insignificant group of people who were so primitive, they were gonna lose the Americas sooner or later, to somebody or something, inevitably. Yikes dude. You don't really mean that, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 21:54:32 GMT
I agree, the Redskins should change their mascot name. Because the team wants to be referred to as winners. These "redskins" are and were obviously losers. Because they not only lost the war for America with the white man. But they are consumate babies who are so sensitive about it, they won't even allow the white man to use them as a compliment referring to them as brave, heroic and vicious fighters. We should erase them from history because obviously they were an extremely insignificant group of people who were so primitive, they were gonna lose the Americas sooner or later, to somebody or something, inevitably. Yikes dude. You don't really mean that, do you? Of course. If we are talking facts, and being honest, . . . That's what happened. That's what it was, and is. They object to the Redskins, the Indians, the Braves, the Chiefs, etc. They want no reference at all from the white man. So let's just erase them from history, and we'll never have to refer to them again. |
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Dec 15, 2020 22:23:36 GMT
Yikes dude. You don't really mean that, do you? Of course. If we are talking facts, and being honest, . . . That's what happened. That's what it was, and is. They object to the Redskins, the Indians, the Braves, the Chiefs, etc. They want no reference at all from the white man. So let's just erase them from history, and we'll never have to refer to them again. Obviously you’re being hyperbolic, but I don’t see why you think this is a non-issue and that Native Americans are just being babies. I mean, it is a non-issue in the sense that a franchise changing their nickname is hardly an issue and shouldn’t be something that should generate controversy unless the franchise is going with something that is also offensive. Indigenous people aren’t being babies when they say they don’t like being used as mascots for sports franchises. And considering what they’ve gone through and continue to go through as a people, I think removing all Native American imagery from sports is a pretty simple thing to do for them. |
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Dec 16, 2020 0:15:01 GMT
You mean 13-3? Anyway, so what? So the Patriots won the Super Bowl after playing three playoff games against teams that finished with a better record than they did. They won the AFC championship game on the road. (I'm on a little tiny cellphone. I meant to post 13-3. But I have big fat fingers on little tiny buttons.) I never said the Patriots weren't good or deserving. I only said they benefited from being in a weak division. One can only benefit from something if they wouldn't have achieved what they achieved without that benefit. The 2018 Patriots would have beat the Chiefs on the road and the Rams in the superbowl regardless of what division they were in. Being in the AFC East did them no favors, especially when they beat many other good teams and won 3 postseason games. This is where your "no pressure to win division so they played better in the playoffs" argument fails, because the Saints have had a cake walk to the playoffs the past two years and have absolutely nothing to show for it. And over the last 10 years, the 3 losers in the AFC East have had more wins than the 3 losers in the NFC South 4 times, the same amount of wins 2 times, and more losses 4 times. Seems pretty even to me. And I could do that with every division and get similar results. You can't have a prolonged advantage if the numbers are even amongst divisions! That's like saying I have the advantage in monopoly because I start with 2 extra $500 bills and you start with an extra 10 $100 bills. It's the same advantage! Nobody is better off! |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 16, 2020 0:26:17 GMT
Of course. If we are talking facts, and being honest, . . . That's what happened. That's what it was, and is. They object to the Redskins, the Indians, the Braves, the Chiefs, etc. They want no reference at all from the white man. So let's just erase them from history, and we'll never have to refer to them again. Obviously you’re being hyperbolic, but I don’t see why you think this is a non-issue and that Native Americans are just being babies. I mean, it is a non-issue in the sense that a franchise changing their nickname is hardly an issue and shouldn’t be something that should generate controversy unless the franchise is going with something that is also offensive. Indigenous people aren’t being babies when they say they don’t like being used as mascots for sports franchises. And considering what they’ve gone through and continue to go through as a people, I think removing all Native American imagery from sports is a pretty simple thing to do for them. What have they gone through? They lost a war and ended up being the first in human history to not be exterminated and/or enslaved. Instead they've been given a welcome mat to the greatest society in world history. They went from living in teepees with no electricity, medicine, or law and order. To living in white man style homes with electricity, full access to modern medical care, and fully imposed law and order. They've been dragged kicking and screaming from cave man technology to the 21rst century. Seems like they won more than they lost. |
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Dec 16, 2020 2:44:33 GMT
Obviously you’re being hyperbolic, but I don’t see why you think this is a non-issue and that Native Americans are just being babies. I mean, it is a non-issue in the sense that a franchise changing their nickname is hardly an issue and shouldn’t be something that should generate controversy unless the franchise is going with something that is also offensive. Indigenous people aren’t being babies when they say they don’t like being used as mascots for sports franchises. And considering what they’ve gone through and continue to go through as a people, I think removing all Native American imagery from sports is a pretty simple thing to do for them. What have they gone through? They lost a war and ended up being the first in human history to not be exterminated and/or enslaved. Instead they've been given a welcome mat to the greatest society in world history. They went from living in teepees with no electricity, medicine, or law and order. To living in white man style homes with electricity, full access to modern medical care, and fully imposed law and order. They've been dragged kicking and screaming from cave man technology to the 21rst century. Seems like they won more than they lost. Come on, man. Their people suffered genocide largely at the hand of white people. We went into their land, killed every single person who fought to protect their home, took their land, and then forced a lot of the survivors onto reservations (some of which aren’t anywhere near their ancestral lands). Since white people have come here, we’ve done nothing but trample all over them simply because they weren’t hip to our ways of living. And after all that, it’s hard for me or any rational human being to say that them wanting sports franchises to ditch nicknames that are offensive to them is a tall order. This really never should’ve been an issue. We should’ve just gave them why they wanted and started giving these franchises new names long ago. Christ alive, you people are fucking dense. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Dec 16, 2020 3:23:18 GMT
What have they gone through? They lost a war and ended up being the first in human history to not be exterminated and/or enslaved. Instead they've been given a welcome mat to the greatest society in world history. They went from living in teepees with no electricity, medicine, or law and order. To living in white man style homes with electricity, full access to modern medical care, and fully imposed law and order. They've been dragged kicking and screaming from cave man technology to the 21rst century. Seems like they won more than they lost. Come on, man. Their people suffered genocide largely at the hand of white people. We went into their land, killed every single person who fought to protect their home, took their land, and then forced a lot of the survivors onto reservations (some of which aren’t anywhere near their ancestral lands). Since white people have come here, we’ve done nothing but trample all over them simply because they weren’t hip to our ways of living. And after all that, it’s hard for me or any rational human being to say that them wanting sports franchises to ditch nicknames that are offensive to them is a tall order. This really never should’ve been an issue. We should’ve just gave them why they wanted and started giving these franchises new names long ago. Christ alive, you people are fucking dense. Hey bud, that's what happens when you lose a war. They weren't victims of genocide. They were killed as enemies of war. They were treated way more humanely than they treated each other for a millinea during their endless Indian battles. And way more "progressively" than most losers of any war --- ever. You would know this if you went to college. And if you were an Indian --- YOU'D GET FREE TUITION !!! Ask any Palestinian if they think the American Indians have been treated poorly. Maybe you and your Indian friends should go live in the occupied territories where the Palestinians live for a year. And then tell me how poorly the Indians have been treated. Indians slaughtered, raped, and enslaved each other for thousands of years before the white man ever arrived. And the Incas and Aztecs were two of the most brutal empires in human history. Don't be stupid. How well do you think the Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and the Ming Dynasty treated the countries and nations they defeated in war? Do you think the Hutus and Tutsis gave each other open invitation to citizenship, free tuition, and the right to operate casinos? Grow up Rocket Man. |
|
