CalZebra2012;842325983 said:

---

"Also, the idea that the team name was created to honor Native Americans is ludicrous."

If you're leaning left. You DO realize that the name was given in 1933, in part, to honor Coach Lone Star Dietz and several players, right? Is it conceivable that someone might have had good intentions 80 years before they knew that you and the lemmings would be marching?

---

George Preston Marshall himself said, in the 1933 edition of the Hartford Courant, that Dietz and the players didn't impact his choice of the name. He changed the name from Braves to Redskins to avoid confusion with the (then) Boston Braves of baseball. Of course, none of us can know what he really meant to do. I'm sure your choice on which side to believe is not politically motivated at all...

If you think that Snyder's decision is based around honoring Native Americans and not avoidance of re-branding the team, you're your own type of lemming. His is a business decision, plain and simple. Even if he did believe in his heart of hearts that the name is positive, if your way of "honoring" a group offends significant numbers of them (the definition of "significant" is up for debate, and is really what this entire controversy should be focused on), you should listen when they tell you you're being ineffective. This is especially true when the features that are being "honored" are stereotypes that plenty of Native Americans (though certainly not all) want to get away from. Here's a test: Walk onto a reservation and start calling people "redskins." Would you do it?

Finally, you consistently accuse liberals of being lemmings or partisan hacks. You've made your name on this board towing the conservative party line on such unrelated issues as: gun control, teachers unions, and now political correctness (Why DO you care so much about the Redskins issue, by the way? Let me guess: it's an independent conclusion reached with no regard for party politics...). From the outside looking in you look like a conservative cliche, and exactly the kind of person you accuse liberals of being.

1979bear;842325982 said:

---

I wouldn't offer this thread as a reason to go to Cal. Nothing special about being a bear in any of these posts.

---

Those that believe that all in Berkeley are liberals would be proven wrong. At least we have some diversity.

pierrezo;842325988 said:

---

How 'bout we use an image of your mom as a mascot? I'm just trying to honor her.

---

Context matters. Since my mom isn't readily and universally recognized as a noble and courageous group of people who would inspire fans and players, I'd say you were disingenuous.

I don't want to distract anyone too much from all the race-based flamethrowing, but I just thought I'd point out that federal registration with the USPTO is not required in order to own and enforce a trademark, although there are benefits to it. Carry on.

CalZebra2012;842325979 said:

---

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/06/10/poll-msnbc-least-trusted-tv-news-source-fox-news-most-trusted.

---

It's nice to finally see someone point to a completely unbiased source. I particularly enjoy the comments section of the article.

In all seriousness, this is a really dumb article if you read the poll that they linked to. The reason Fox News is the "most trusted" is quite obvious to anyone who is paying attention. If you exclude republicans (and independents who are really republicans), Fox News would be the least trusted news source in the poll. This poll isn't using trust as in trustworthy the way an objective observer would see it, the question was something like "which news source do you trust most?" and the answer is that republicans like Fox News not because it's true, but because it aligns with their views.

I'm honestly embarrassed for you that you thought it was a good idea to link to that article. Unless you are a troll (which I suspect may be the case) in which case bravo for stupendous trolling the last few weeks.

berk18;842326016 said:

---

George Preston Marshall himself said, in the 1933 edition of the Hartford Courant, that Dietz and the players didn't impact his choice of the name. He changed the name from Braves to Redskins to avoid confusion with the (then) Boston Braves of baseball. Of course, none of us can know what he really meant to do. I'm sure your choice on which side to believe is not politically motivated at all...

If you think that Snyder's decision is based around honoring Native Americans and not avoidance of re-branding the team, you're your own type of lemming. His is a business decision, plain and simple. Even if he did believe in his heart of hearts that the name is positive, if your way of "honoring" a group offends significant numbers of them (the definition of "significant" is up for debate, and is really what this entire controversy should be focused on), you should listen when they tell you you're being ineffective. This is especially true when the features that are being "honored" are stereotypes that plenty of Native Americans (though certainly not all) want to get away from. Here's a test: Walk onto a reservation and start calling people "redskins." Would you do it?

Finally, you consistently accuse liberals of being lemmings or partisan hacks. You've made your name on this board towing the conservative party line on such unrelated issues as: gun control, teachers unions, and now political correctness (Why DO you care so much about the Redskins issue, by the way? Let me guess: it's an independent conclusion reached with no regard for party politics...). From the outside looking in you look like a conservative cliche, and exactly the kind of person you accuse liberals of being.

---

Thank you for a refreshingly coherent response. I guess I'm off point for even addressing the motives that would lead one to name the team and I'm likely wrong. The central matter is how people have considered the name since that time and to the present. I know for a fact that a majority of folk that support the team revere the name "Redskins" and that they are not uttering it in the context of slur. What may be insensitivity is now labelled "racism" in a society that exhibits tolerance, understanding and discourse largely in one direction. So my "political motivation" springs from there and I'm not alone, as evidenced anywhere this issue is discussed.

Even within this discussion, the Fighting Irish logo was presented almost without comment, demonstrating the subjectivity of the Redskins "slur." In our society, Native Americans are called "Native Americans" and are viewed as victims (as an Indian, I find that insulting) and Irish are just.Irish (irrespective of the severe racism they experienced as a group in times past). Skin is too white I suppose (and the volatility of this phenomenon leads me to reiterate that my skin isn't white). I believe that more people would be willing to get behind a clearly decent principle if it weren't a "cause" and so subjectively directed. I suppose that if, as a society, we addressed my essentially ignored comments about poverty, alcoholism and illiteracy, the Redskins issue would ring a bit more sincere.

In my opinion, the matter will be forced. Political powers are overthrowing trademarks, advocates are gaining momentum. You are right in stating that money plays into it. The name will be banished and we can go back to ignoring Native Americans, self-satisfied in our spirited "victory." An empty gesture that makes Native Americans view you with suspicion as you drive across the reservation.

CalZebra2012;842326062 said:

---

The central matter is how people have considered the name since that time and to the present. I know for a fact that a majority of folk that support the team revere the name "Redskins" and that they are not uttering it in the context of slur. What may be insensitivity is now labelled "racism" in a society that exhibits tolerance, understanding and discourse largely in one direction. So my "political motivation" springs from there and I'm not alone, as evidenced anywhere this issue is discussed.

---

That is why I've tried to avoid calling anyone who likes the team name a racist (well, except for George Preston Marshall, but he is dead and it's pretty conclusively proven that he was a racist). I don't believe most of them are. People like the team name for many reasons, probably mostly related to sentiment and nostalgia for the team they grew up rooting for.

However, I do believe that just as we shouldn't let emotion cloud our judgment on the left (by pointing fingers and calling people racists without knowing their motivations), those on the right should also not let emotion cloud their judgment, and as such we should call a horse a horse. "Redskin" is, in modern usage, considered an insensitive racial slur. That's a fact. Every dictionary says something similar. You can take that fact and do what you want with it, but dancing around the fact is not going to help the argument; it just looks like a dodge.

CalZebra2012;842326062 said:

---

Even within this discussion, the Fighting Irish logo was presented almost without comment, demonstrating the subjectivity of the Redskins "slur." In our society, Native Americans are called "Native Americans" and are viewed as victims (as an Indian, I find that insulting) and Irish are just.Irish (irrespective of the severe racism they experienced as a group in times past). Skin is too white I suppose (and the volatility of this phenomenon leads me to reiterate that my skin isn't white). I believe that more people would be willing to get behind a clearly decent principle if it weren't a "cause" and so subjectively directed. I suppose that if, as a society, we addressed my essentially ignored comments about poverty, alcoholism and illiteracy, the Redskins issue would ring a bit more sincere.

---

The question about the difference between this and the "Fighting Irish" nickname is a good one. I think it comes down to representation. For one thing, "Irish" as a term is not a slur; it's the actual, legitimate name of a group of people. The other difference is that schools using the name "Fighting Irish" typically were those either founded or run by Irish Catholics themselves, so the claim that it is a point of pride carries more weight. No Native American (or American Indian, if you prefer) ever founded a sports team and named it for themselves, and I would bet that if they did they would not choose the name "Redskins."

There is room for nuance here. I can buy the idea that other Indian-themed names like "Braves" or "Chiefs" or "Seminoles" are not offensive, because those words are not slurs. They are either terms of respect or actual names of actual tribes. You can make a decent argument that they are honoring Native Americans with those names. I don't think you can make a good argument for "Redskins."

CalZebra2012;842326062 said:

---

In my opinion, the matter will be forced. Political powers are overthrowing trademarks, advocates are gaining momentum. You are right in stating that money plays into it. The name will be banished and we can go back to ignoring Native Americans, self-satisfied in our spirited "victory." An empty gesture that makes Native Americans view you with suspicion as you drive across the reservation.

---

I agree that it seems inevitable now that the name will be changed at some point. You are also correct that it would not be right to change the name and go back to ignoring Native American causes and issues. But one thing does not necessarily have to mean that the other will happen. It's not like keeping the team name as it is helps Native American causes either.

sycasey;842326071 said:

---

That is why I've tried to avoid calling anyone who likes the team name a racist (well, except for George Preston Marshall, but he is dead and it's pretty conclusively proven that he was a racist). I don't believe most of them are. People like the team name for many reasons, probably mostly related to sentiment and nostalgia for the team they grew up rooting for.

However, I do believe that just as we shouldn't let emotion cloud our judgment on the left (by pointing fingers and calling people racists without knowing their motivations), those on the right should also not let emotion cloud their judgment, and as such we should call a horse a horse. "Redskin" is, in modern usage, considered an insensitive racial slur. That's a fact. Every dictionary says something similar. You can take that fact and do what you want with it, but dancing around the fact is not going to help the argument; it just looks like a dodge.



The question about the difference between this and the "Fighting Irish" nickname is a good one. I think it comes down to representation. For one thing, "Irish" as a term is not a slur; it's the actual, legitimate name of a group of people. The other difference is that schools using the name "Fighting Irish" typically were those either founded or run by Irish Catholics themselves, so the claim that it is a point of pride carries more weight. No Native American (or American Indian, if you prefer) ever founded a sports team and named it for themselves, and I would bet that if they did they would not choose the name "Redskins."

There is room for nuance here. I can buy the idea that other Indian-themed names like "Braves" or "Chiefs" or "Seminoles" are not offensive, because those words are not slurs. They are either terms of respect or actual names of actual tribes. You can make a decent argument that they are honoring Native Americans with those names. I don't think you can make a good argument for "Redskins."



I agree that it seems inevitable now that the name will be changed at some point. You are also correct that it would not be right to change the name and go back to ignoring Native American causes and issues. But one thing does not necessarily have to mean that the other will happen. It's not like keeping the team name as it is helps Native American causes either.

---

I'm somewhat agnostic. On one hand I can see certain groups really offended by this name, on the other, this trademark was valid for decades and all of a sudden is invalid?....By the way, the names of "Braves" and "Chiefs" is an insult to some...so lets change them all I say....

Quote:

---

The debate over whether sports teams should use the name Redskins has simmered for decades. The Washington Redskins and many of the 62 high schools that use the name say that it is meant to honor Native Americans, not to disparage them.

But many Native Americans disagree. The National Congress of American Indians, the largest national organization of Native American tribes, has denounced the use of any "American Indian sports nicknames and imagery" and has stated that such use "perpetuates stereotypes of American Indians that are very harmful."

Yet not all Native Americans oppose the term Redskins. Capital News Service identified three majority Native American high schools that use it proudly, including Red Mesa High School in Arizona.

"Being from Native American culture, [the term] is not derogatory," said Tommie Yazzie, superintendent of the school district that oversees Red Mesa High School. He identified himself as a "full-blooded Navajo."

Though he said it was acceptable for schools with majority Native American populations to use the name Redskins, he believes that non‐Native American schools should avoid using it.

---

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/05/other-redskins-high-schools-debate-dropping-controversial-mascot-148548

I have never agreed with the last part...that is like saying it is ok for blacks to use the "N" word but not ok for whites. It shouldn't be ok for anyone or are we back to separate but (un)equal.?

sycasey;842325967 said:

---

Their logo will be.

---

As I understand it, the logo is not covered by this ruling. Only the name.

Also, the previous case was overturned on a technicality and not on the merits of the case alone.

The Seattle Times just banned the use of "redskins" from future articles. Good for them. Have any newspapers in the Bay Area or CA done the same? Maybe the Washington team can call themselves the Washington Cardinal.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/take2/2014/06/18/why-were-banning-the-redskins-nickname-in-the-seattle-times/

CalZebra2012;842326062 said:

---

Thank you for a refreshingly coherent response. I guess I'm off point for even addressing the motives that would lead one to name the team and I'm likely wrong. The central matter is how people have considered the name since that time and to the present. I know for a fact that a majority of folk that support the team revere the name "Redskins" and that they are not uttering it in the context of slur. What may be insensitivity is now labelled "racism" in a society that exhibits tolerance, understanding and discourse largely in one direction. So my "political motivation" springs from there and I'm not alone, as evidenced anywhere this issue is discussed.

Even within this discussion, the Fighting Irish logo was presented almost without comment, demonstrating the subjectivity of the Redskins "slur." In our society, Native Americans are called "Native Americans" and are viewed as victims (as an Indian, I find that insulting) and Irish are just.Irish (irrespective of the severe racism they experienced as a group in times past). Skin is too white I suppose (and the volatility of this phenomenon leads me to reiterate that my skin isn't white). I believe that more people would be willing to get behind a clearly decent principle if it weren't a "cause" and so subjectively directed. I suppose that if, as a society, we addressed my essentially ignored comments about poverty, alcoholism and illiteracy, the Redskins issue would ring a bit more sincere.

In my opinion, the matter will be forced. Political powers are overthrowing trademarks, advocates are gaining momentum. You are right in stating that money plays into it. The name will be banished and we can go back to ignoring Native Americans, self-satisfied in our spirited "victory." An empty gesture that makes Native Americans view you with suspicion as you drive across the reservation.

---

I think you are disingenuous . The majority of people who watch the team isn't the issue. Indians are invisible in this society. They are less than 1% of the population and unlike African Americans are not disproportionately large in the sports and entertainment fields. Do you think that we'd be having this discussion if the team name was the "Washington Coloreds"? Nobody cares what the Indians say even if it was they that brought the suit. They are powerless and without a voice.

GB54;842325888 said:

---

Yeah, we're ready for the San Francisco Chinamen and the San Jose Yellowskins.

---

This is what I was thinking about this morning. Would I be offended if there had been a team founded decades ago in San Francisco called the Orientals with a Chinese railroad worker as their logo? I don't know if I would, but I'm certain that people would tell me I'm supposed to be offended.

As an Asian, I understand that the term Orientals shouldn't be used to describe human beings, but honestly, I don't get why that term is supposed to be offensive. It's just outdated. It'd be like calling a black person a Negro. It's not a slur. It's just an outdated term that's no longer accepted.

All of this is to say, I just don't buy that the name "Redskins" is offensive. It's not used in a derogatory way. It's not done to lampoon or mock Native Americans. It is not even in the same league as the N word, and I agree with the Redskins' attorney when he says the name has acquired a secondary meaning.

It's just laughable that these self-righteous PC people think that changing the name of a football team somehow makes up for our despicable history of mass murder and genocide of Native Americans since taking over their land. I also find it comical how a bunch of non-Native Americans on this board are trying to explain to a Native American poster that he's supposed to be offended by the term throughout this thread.

This whole thing is stupid and a waste of time and money. If the owner doesn't want to change the name, then the name should remain. Quit wasting taxpayer money on silly nonsense like this.

CALiforniALUM;842326100 said:

---

As I understand it, the logo is not covered by this ruling. Only the name.

Also, the previous case was overturned on a technicality and not on the merits of the case alone.

---

I was referring to the Cleveland Indians logo. And as far as I know there is no legal challenge to that logo -- I was merely saying that after the Redskins name the next thing likely to be scrapped is Chief Wahoo.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326136 said:

---

All of this is to say, I just don't buy that the name "Redskins" is offensive. It's not used in a derogatory way. It's not done to lampoon or mock Native Americans. It is not even in the same league as the N word, and I agree with the Redskins' attorney when he says the name has acquired a secondary meaning.

---

I would not equate the term "Redskin" with "Oriental," which is really more of an antiquated term and not a slur. It's more like calling someone a "Chink." You may not see it as offensive, but look it up in any dictionary and the entry will say it is.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326136 said:

---

It's just laughable that these self-righteous PC people think that changing the name of a football team somehow makes up for our despicable history of mass murder and genocide of Native Americans since taking over their land.

---

Does anyone really think that, or is that something you made up to distract from the question at hand? No one is saying that changing the name makes up for anything, only that it's a bad name and it should be changed.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326136 said:

---

This whole thing is stupid and a waste of time and money. If the owner doesn't want to change the name, then the name should remain. Quit wasting taxpayer money on silly nonsense like this.

---

As far as I know, not a dime of taxpayer money has been spent on this, other than a resolution by some Senators that it probably took them 2 seconds to sign, and a court case brought by private citizens that resulted in the loss of trademark. Again, this is not really the issue.

Of course Daniel Snyder is within his rights to keep the name. It is also within the rights of people who don't like the name to keep putting pressure on him to change it. Freedom works both ways.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326136 said:

---

This is what I was thinking about this morning. Would I be offended if there had been a team founded decades ago in San Francisco called the Orientals with a Chinese railroad worker as their logo? I don't know if I would, but I'm certain that people would tell me I'm supposed to be offended.

As an Asian, I understand that the term Orientals shouldn't be used to describe human beings, but honestly, I don't get why that term is supposed to be offensive. It's just outdated. It'd be like calling a black person a Negro. It's not a slur. It's just an outdated term that's no longer accepted.

All of this is to say, I just don't buy that the name "Redskins" is offensive. It's not used in a derogatory way. It's not done to lampoon or mock Native Americans. It is not even in the same league as the N word, and I agree with the Redskins' attorney when he says the name has acquired a secondary meaning.

It's just laughable that these self-righteous PC people think that changing the name of a football team somehow makes up for our despicable history of mass murder and genocide of Native Americans since taking over their land. I also find it comical how a bunch of non-Native Americans on this board are trying to explain to a Native American poster that he's supposed to be offended by the term throughout this thread.

This whole thing is stupid and a waste of time and money. If the owner doesn't want to change the name, then the name should remain. Quit wasting taxpayer money on silly nonsense like this.

---

I agree that this is somewhat subjective which is why Cal Zebra's point is also subjective and not necessarily representative of Indians. Chinaman may not offend you nor may yellow peril, yellow man or chink but that hardly makes these terms harmless to all Asians or a historical reason for grandfathering these terms in a sports team name to "honor" Chinese who worked in the gold mines.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326136 said:

---

This is what I was thinking about this morning. Would I be offended if there had been a team founded decades ago in San Francisco called the Orientals with a Chinese railroad worker as their logo? I don't know if I would, but I'm certain that people would tell me I'm supposed to be offended.

As an Asian, I understand that the term Orientals shouldn't be used to describe human beings, but honestly, I don't get why that term is supposed to be offensive. It's just outdated. It'd be like calling a black person a Negro. It's not a slur. It's just an outdated term that's no longer accepted.

All of this is to say, I just don't buy that the name "Redskins" is offensive. It's not used in a derogatory way. It's not done to lampoon or mock Native Americans. It is not even in the same league as the N word, and I agree with the Redskins' attorney when he says the name has acquired a secondary meaning.

It's just laughable that these self-righteous PC people think that changing the name of a football team somehow makes up for our despicable history of mass murder and genocide of Native Americans since taking over their land. I also find it comical how a bunch of non-Native Americans on this board are trying to explain to a Native American poster that he's supposed to be offended by the term throughout this thread.

This whole thing is stupid and a waste of time and money. If the owner doesn't want to change the name, then the name should remain. Quit wasting taxpayer money on silly nonsense like this.

---

The San Francisco Celestials has a nice old school ring to it.

GB54;842326160 said:

---

I agree that this is somewhat subjective which is why Cal Zebra's point is also subjective and not necessarily representative of Indians. Chinaman may not offend you nor may yellow peril, yellow man or chink but that hardly makes these terms harmless to all Asians or a historical reason for grandfathering these terms in a sports team name to "honor" Chinese who worked in the gold mines.

---

I am part Chinese and I can tell you that I would absolutely be offended by a team named the San Francisco Orientals (or Chinamen) and want them to change the name. I also know that such a name would never, ever be allowed to stick (especially in a city like S.F.) because basically all Asian-American groups would rail against it.

The Redskins name has been able to skate by because Native Americans are such a small part of the population, so until now their voice has not been loud enough and most people didn't notice. Now people are starting to notice.

hanky1;842325971 said:

---

What about the name Oklahoma? I don't understand why Obama and others don't want to change the name of the state of Oklahoma. It's clearly as offensive as any Native American term out there.

---

This is a bit of a stretch. why not pick on Indiana, Indianapolis, Sioux City, Miami, Alabama (named for the Alibamu) just to name a few.

How about keeping the name Redskins, but changing the mascot to a boiling potato?

What happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?"

Orical;842326168 said:

---

How about keeping the name Redskins, but changing the mascot to a boiling potato?

What happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?"

---

If we resort to kindergarten sayings to advance political discourse we are in some serious ****.

Looking up Fighting Words in this conversation might be beneficial. Basically fighting words is any word or phrase that can incite an immediate breach of the peace and thus are NOT subject to first amendment protection. Racial slurs fit within this definition be it redskin, n*gger, chink, heeb, etc.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326136 said:

---

This is what I was thinking about this morning. Would I be offended if there had been a team founded decades ago in San Francisco called the Orientals with a Chinese railroad worker as their logo? I don't know if I would, but I'm certain that people would tell me I'm supposed to be offended.

As an Asian, I understand that the term Orientals shouldn't be used to describe human beings, but honestly, I don't get why that term is supposed to be offensive. It's just outdated. It'd be like calling a black person a Negro. It's not a slur. It's just an outdated term that's no longer accepted.

All of this is to say, I just don't buy that the name "Redskins" is offensive. It's not used in a derogatory way. It's not done to lampoon or mock Native Americans. It is not even in the same league as the N word, and I agree with the Redskins' attorney when he says the name has acquired a secondary meaning.

It's just laughable that these self-righteous PC people think that changing the name of a football team somehow makes up for our despicable history of mass murder and genocide of Native Americans since taking over their land. I also find it comical how a bunch of non-Native Americans on this board are trying to explain to a Native American poster that he's supposed to be offended by the term throughout this thread.

This whole thing is stupid and a waste of time and money. If the owner doesn't want to change the name, then the name should remain. Quit wasting taxpayer money on silly nonsense like this.

---

+1000

Such a waste of time and money... In my view, a word is not racist or a slur, it is simply a word... what matters is the intent of those behind the use of the word, and in the case of all suspect team names in use for decades... it is stupid to argue that intent is racist. Even if the intent of the original owner was that the term had a slightly racist meaning, the intent of the teams using these terms after decades is not. Don't waste peoples time or money on these silly endeavors.

sycasey;842326155 said:

---

As far as I know, not a dime of taxpayer money has been spent on this, other than a resolution by some Senators that it probably took them 2 seconds to sign, and a court case brought by private citizens that resulted in the loss of trademark. Again, this is not really the issue.

---

Although I haven't spent much time on this, I very much doubt this is correct... Not sure if the case we are talking about was a civil lawsuit between private citizens, a civil suit by private indian citizens against the PTO, or an administrative action at the USPTO to invalidate the trademarks.
Even if the case was brought by one or more private Indian citizens against the Washington Redskins and not against the USPTO directly, my guess is that there were government lawyers that were involved in the case, which costs taxpayer money. Even if you argue that those lawyers were salaried and just doing the job they were already paid for, that work takes away from other work they could be doing and possibly creates the need to hire more lawyers on salary. If the suit was brought in civil court against the USPTO, to invalidate the trademarks, then government lawyers were most definitely directly involved, and if this was simply an administrative action filed with the USPTO to try and invalidate the trademark then there was at least some administrative positions within the USPTO TTAB that spent time writing an opinion invalidating the trademarks, which costs money again, even if these are salaried positions.

Unit2Sucks;842326061 said:

---

It's nice to finally see someone point to a completely unbiased source. I particularly enjoy the comments section of the article.

In all seriousness, this is a really dumb article if you read the poll that they linked to. The reason Fox News is the "most trusted" is quite obvious to anyone who is paying attention. If you exclude republicans (and independents who are really republicans), Fox News would be the least trusted news source in the poll. This poll isn't using trust as in trustworthy the way an objective observer would see it, the question was something like "which news source do you trust most?" and the answer is that republicans like Fox News not because it's true, but because it aligns with their views.

I'm honestly embarrassed for you that you thought it was a good idea to link to that article. Unless you are a troll (which I suspect may be the case) in which case bravo for stupendous trolling the last few weeks.

---

Independent's would disagree with you regarding your assertion that they are really Republicans and that is also borne out in the substantial statistical differences between "Fox News Independents" and "Non-Fox News Independents" in the poll.

Do people generally trust those who agree with them, all other things being equal? Of course they do and that works both ways. What should be embarrassing is that 10% of self-described Democrats and 10% of liberals view MSNBC as the most trusted (my central point) while nearly the same amount of Democrats and Liberals see Fox as the most trusted. Maybe a little less "Reverend" Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton?

briloker;842326199 said:

---

n my view, a word is not racist or a slur, it is simply a word

---

So, nothing inherently wrong with a white guy using the N-word, right? As long as his intent is not racist?

briloker;842326208 said:

---

Although I haven't spent much time on this, I very much doubt this is correct... Not sure if the case we are talking about was a civil lawsuit between private citizens, a civil suit by private indian citizens against the PTO, or an administrative action at the USPTO to invalidate the trademarks.
Even if the case was brought by one or more private Indian citizens against the Washington Redskins and not against the USPTO directly, my guess is that there were government lawyers that were involved in the case, which costs taxpayer money. Even if you argue that those lawyers were salaried and just doing the job they were already paid for, that work takes away from other work they could be doing and possibly creates the need to hire more lawyers on salary. If the suit was brought in civil court against the USPTO, to invalidate the trademarks, then government lawyers were most definitely directly involved, and if this was simply an administrative action filed with the USPTO to try and invalidate the trademark then there was at least some administrative positions within the USPTO TTAB that spent time writing an opinion invalidating the trademarks, which costs money again, even if these are salaried positions.

---

The suit was brought by private Native American citizens. Not a government-driven action.

Tons of cases are brought before the USPTO every year. Many of them are frivolous, but they still have to hear them (due process and all that). And in this case it seems the case was NOT frivolous, because they ruled in favor if it.

Any taxpayer money spent on this case specifically is incidental and would have probably been spent on some other frivolous patent application anyway. This argument about it being a waste of government money is a specious argument and a distraction from the actual issue here.

CalZebra2012;842326209 said:

---

What should be embarrassing is that 10% of self-described Democrats and 10% of liberals view MSNBC as the most trusted (my central point) while nearly the same amount of Democrats and Liberals see Fox as the most trusted. Maybe a little less "Reverend" Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton?

---

Maybe this just means that liberals don't all flock to the same news source? Or that in general they find both stations (Fox and MSNBC) equally ridiculous?

sycasey;842326218 said:

---

Maybe this just means that liberals don't all flock to the same news source? Or that in general they find both stations (Fox and MSNBC) equally ridiculous?

---

Exactly, I feel like zebra thinks there is some sort of battle for supremacy between Fox and MSNBC. I didn't even realize MSNBC was still a news channel until he pointed it out. The poll that the hack website quoted wasn't about the media at all, it was an immigration reform poll.

The media stuff was thrown in as a bonus and I think that by "most trusted" they were not referring to level of confidence in the truth of the news being reported but asking people "which network do you rely on the most for news". The poll showed a correlation in immigration reforms among people whose most trusted news source was Fox, CNN, Comedy Central, MSNBC, network news, etc. That's a completely different from a poll regarding the truthiness of news sources. This poll is really talking more about market share than anything else, and the results are predictable.

What Zebra isn't telling us is that more Republicans consider MSNBC to be their "most trusted" new source than Newsbusters!!!11!!!1111!1!1!!!!!! I guess MSNBC isn't so bad after all.

For what it's worth and in case it matters to anyone, CNBC And Bloomberg are my two "most trusted" news sources. BI comes in at number 3!

sycasey;842326212 said:

---

So, nothing inherently wrong with a white guy using the N-word, right? As long as his intent is not racist?

---

With a HUGE emphasis on "white guy." As far as I know, there's no sports team using the N-word in their title so the word might carry a little more impact than "Redskin." You might be hard-pressed to justify the use of the N-word whereas we can still say "Redskin" (at least until the inevitable parent state purging) because it's used 99%+ to address a football team. Circumstances and context DO matter.

Unit2Sucks;842326223 said:

---

Exactly, I feel like zebra thinks there is some sort of battle for supremacy between Fox and MSNBC. I didn't even realize MSNBC was still a news channel until he pointed it out. The poll that the hack website quoted wasn't about the media at all, it was an immigration reform poll.

The media stuff was thrown in as a bonus and I think that by "most trusted" they were not referring to level of confidence in the truth of the news being reported but asking people "which network do you rely on the most for news". The poll showed a correlation in immigration reforms among people whose most trusted news source was Fox, CNN, Comedy Central, MSNBC, network news, etc. That's a completely different from a poll regarding the truthiness of news sources. This poll is really talking more about market share than anything else, and the results are predictable.

What Zebra isn't telling us is that more Republicans consider MSNBC to be their "most trusted" new source than Newsbusters!!!11!!!1111!1!1!!!!!! I guess MSNBC isn't so bad after all.

For what it's worth and in case it matters to anyone, CNBC And Bloomberg are my two "most trusted" news sources. BI comes in at number 3!

---

Zebra is trolling everyone. Put him on ignore.

beelzebear;842326225 said:

---

Zebra is trolling everyone. Put him on ignore.

---

I guess he's a closet liberal like Megyn Kelly who I never heard of until that other thread.

CalZebra2012;842326224 said:

---

Circumstances and context DO matter.

---

They do matter, and a football team is not the right context for a word defined as a racial slur.

beelzebear;842326225 said:

---

Zebra is trolling everyone. Put him on ignore.

---

Done.

Every post is a political derailment, I dont even know why hes posting here.

sycasey;842326218 said:

---

Maybe this just means that liberals don't all flock to the same news source? Or that in general they find both stations (Fox and MSNBC) equally ridiculous?

---

Maybe, maybe, maybe...so generalizations are okay if they lean to the left? Conservatives and Republicans are inordinately subjective and find Fox to be more credible and liberals and Democrats are logical and dispassionate and objectively sample everything, dismissing all the drama? How's the air up there?

Unit2Sucks;842326223 said:

---

Exactly, I feel like zebra thinks there is some sort of battle for supremacy between Fox and MSNBC. I didn't even realize MSNBC was still a news channel until he pointed it out. The poll that the hack website quoted wasn't about the media at all, it was an immigration reform poll...

What Zebra isn't telling us is that more Republicans consider MSNBC to be their "most trusted" new source than Newsbusters!!!11!!!1111!1!1!!!!!! I guess MSNBC isn't so bad after all.

For what it's worth and in case it matters to anyone, CNBC And Bloomberg are my two "most trusted" news sources. BI comes in at number 3!

---

My comment was directly related to a criticism of Fox.

The link is listed so anyone can decide what I'm not "telling" everyone. If you think the article, circumstances and poll indicate that MSNBC "isn't so bad after all," enjoy. LOL.