Jump to content

Indians to Remove Chief Wahoo effective 2019


MWil23

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Right, but I would argue the differences are also a university level vs. privately owned multi million dollar corporations is tricky. See, the Washington Native American Slurs. Even Notre Dame as a private institution is an enigma, although perhaps Marquette is as well, so who knows. Plenty of schools around here have changed their names, like Miami of Ohio (Redhawks instead of Redskins), and even Wright State University, while still being the Raiders, changed their mascot from a viking to a wolf.

There are definitely differences between private universities and owned sports franchises, most notably the number of people who have opinions that carry weight in the conversation. Universities have boards of trustees and chancellors and whatnot whereas it's just Dan Snyder putting his foot down. No one person at Marquette has that kind of power.

The reason I brought it up wasn't so much to talk about how the decision gets made or the politics of it, since that's already done. I just think it's a noteworthy example of a unilateral mascot switch that I was present for, and what the aftermath looks like. Marquette's history isn't gone or even diminished as a result, and now there aren't any type of protests over the name either way. In the short term, it's a bumpy road but it smooths out after a while.

That's why I would have changed everything at once if I were the Indians, before even factoring in the racial implications of the name. Rip the band-aid off and be done with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, playmaker8267 said:

To those offended, be sure to see the bigger picture. Somewhere we (you) decided that if some people are offended by something, it has to go. Someone already mentioned this, but how many people have to be offended before a team name has to go? A thousand? A hundred? Five?

The Braves are next. Then the New Jersey Devils. Then the Fighting Irish, New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, San Francisco and New York Giants (fat shaming), Nashville Predators (triggering), Chicago Blackhawks, and Vancouver Canucks. These sound ridiculous, but in a world where people sit around looking for things to be offended at, they just work their way down the list. If we decide the best option is to pacify everyone who twists themselves into a pretzel by being offended, every game will be between the Wildcats, Tigers, and Eagles.

I'm about 80% serious about the above with some embellishment for effect. I understand why the Redskins, Indians, and maybe even the Braves are offensive. Let's do away with the slurs, no problem, but there needs to be a hard and fast line where this ends or else it never will.

You didn't mention the Chiefs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Can you present a coherent argument in favor of a racist caricature without using moronic 4chan lingo?

Sure. My argument would be that you, and far too many other people get their panties twisted up in a tight bunch over things that don't affect you're daily lives in the slightest. We used to teach children that crying will get you nowhere, but slowly we are turning into a world where the more you cry, the more you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mesa_Titan said:

Sure. My argument would be that you, and far too many other people get their panties twisted up in a tight bunch over things that don't affect you're daily lives in the slightest. We used to teach children that crying will get you nowhere, but slowly we are turning into a world where the more you cry, the more you get.

That kind of thinking enables injustice and is laughably shortsighted. Should I not care for civil rights or the dignity of other peoples just because it doesn't personally affect me?

Not having empathy for other people doesn't make you a macho, alpha male btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 11:16 AM, MWil23 said:

I can't really speak about the history of Atlanta here.

I agree.

What I don't agree with is the selective logic of things like this:

original_leprechaun.jpg

How is this possibly allowed? It's pretty offensive to be honest.

I don't find the Fighting Irish to be offensive. How do we determine how far we go to not 'offend' people? I'm certain that no matter what you do or change, at least one person will find some way to be offended about something.

People need to stop being so sensitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, redsoxsuck05 said:

That kind of thinking enables injustice and is laughably shortsighted. Should I not care for civil rights or the dignity of other peoples just because it doesn't personally affect me?

Not having empathy for other people doesn't make you a macho, alpha male btw.

What civil right does that logo infringe upon? Enlighten me.

White knighting (totally offended by that term btw9_9) for a group of over sensitive cry babies doesn't make you a hero, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mesa_Titan said:

What civil right does that logo infringe upon? Enlighten me.

White knighting (totally offended by that term btw9_9) for a group of over sensitive cry babies doesn't make you a hero, either.

You said it yourself...we should ignore things that don't personally affect us.

Do you have any other redpill/gamergate buzzwords that try to frame being a decent person as a bad thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

That kind of thinking enables injustice and is laughably shortsighted. Should I not care for civil rights or the dignity of other peoples just because it doesn't personally affect me?

Not having empathy for other people doesn't make you a macho, alpha male btw.

It also pretends that this is one side of outrage versus one totally reasonable side, and that's just not true.

Each side takes this seriously, and it's silly to pretend otherwise. Check out the BFIB twitter if you don't believe me (not at work if you want to avoid the language). And, ultimately, that's the part of this that is so baffling to me. If someone wants to start censoring stand up comics or forbidding reasonable, but controversial speakers on college campuses or completely disallow dissenting opinions, I'll fight that tooth and nail. But it's a freaking baseball mascot that genuinely bothers people, and has for decades as evidenced by protests, formal requests to the team, and court cases.

That's the hill the people on the "reasonable" want to die on here? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mesa_Titan said:

Sure. My argument would be that you, and far too many other people get their panties twisted up in a tight bunch over things that don't affect you're daily lives in the slightest. We used to teach children that crying will get you nowhere, but slowly we are turning into a world where the more you cry, the more you get.

This just simply isn't true.  Our freaking nation was formed by people "crying" about injustice.  The key is, and always has been, about making sure the crying is justified (and I would argue significant enough in scope) and that there is a clear way to remedy the situation.  

But I absolutely get being numbed to people getting "offended" over every little thing these days. I'm talking about seeing someone's nativity scene in their front yard, or having someone wish them Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.  I'd probably side with you on the "Target OCD shirt" fiasco as well.  It's clearly a small sample, but I know 2 people that have been diagnosed with OCD.  Neither had any issue with the shirt, and both found it humorous.  But this Chief Wahoo situation isn't like those at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, playmaker8267 said:

To those offended, be sure to see the bigger picture. Somewhere we (you) decided that if some people are offended by something, it has to go. Someone already mentioned this, but how many people have to be offended before a team name has to go? A thousand? A hundred? Five?

The Braves are next. Then the New Jersey Devils. Then the Fighting Irish, New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, San Francisco and New York Giants (fat shaming), Nashville Predators (triggering), Chicago Blackhawks, and Vancouver Canucks. These sound ridiculous, but in a world where people sit around looking for things to be offended at, they just work their way down the list. If we decide the best option is to pacify everyone who twists themselves into a pretzel by being offended, every game will be between the Wildcats, Tigers, and Eagles.

I'm about 80% serious about the above with some embellishment for effect. I understand why the Redskins, Indians, and maybe even the Braves are offensive. Let's do away with the slurs, no problem, but there needs to be a hard and fast line where this ends or else it never will.

I thought that we got away from the domino theory decades ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...