CalZebra2012;842326254 said:

---

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.

---

Dude, I don't think you get it -- none of us give a damn about MSNBC.

CalZebra2012;842326252 said:

---

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?

---

Maybe.

concernedparent;842326172 said:

---

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

---

Hate to tell you, but we've been in some serious **** for many years now.

sycasey;842326258 said:

---

Dude, I don't think you get it -- none of us give a damn about MSNBC.

---

You're several posts too far in to make that claim, particularly after so carefully editing my quotes in your posts. Oh well. Sorry if I've made you angry. If you go back, I hope you'll see that I made an effort to argue my point of view and address yours, with just a bit of ribbing. You clearly don't agree with anything I've said and I'm okay with it.

CalZebra2012;842326269 said:

---

You clearly don't agree with anything I've said and I'm okay with it.

---

You're several posts too far in to make that claim.

The TTAB is an administrative court inside the PTO. If this gets appealed, then it will go to a "real" court. The appellant can choose either the Federal Circuit or a district court, but that decision has consequences (basically additional evidence vs. cost/exposure). For those worried about the cost to the government, aside from the private attorneys for each side there is a government attorney assigned to monitor the case. There are also typically 3 TTAB members (judges) who decide the matter. Although most TTAB cases don't involve oral argument, here it looks like they did hold at least one hearing back in March, so that was some additional time/expense. The filing fee for a petition to cancel is currently $300 per class. Here the petitioner paid $1,800.

It will be interesting to see what Snyder decides to do. The mainstream media is reporting this as though the Redskins "lost their trademark." That's absolutely, 100% not true. What they've lost absent a reversal is their federal registration. There's a difference. They still own all of their trademarks at a common law level, and I'd have to assume that the marks by now are famous enough that they enjoy worldwide or at least nationwide secondary meaning.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199

sycasey;842326212 said:

---

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

---

Do you condone the use of "******" or "nigga" by black guys versus white guys? Are you saying that only black people should be allowed to use these terms? Frankly, I think most use of these words, by people of any race, has a disparaging intent and is not okay because of that intent. However, I am not gonna get bent out of shape if Kanye decides he likes to use it because I don't see his use of it as disparaging in context, nor if Macklemore or Eminem used it in their music either. And I don't think that every use of the words, by a person of any race, necessarily that intent. Obviously, there is typically a lot of artistic meaning to why it has found acceptable use in hip-hop, but that isn't really the point.

In other words, the context of the use of the terms is what matters, not the words themselves or even the race of the person who uses it. Or maybe you don't see the difference in that argument...

Do you disagree? Are you saying that white people can never use those terms without being racist but they are okay for use by black people? I think that is an ignorant, and quite possibly racist position. I would be more accepting of a counter argument that nobody, no matter what race, could ever use a word because the intent behind the word is always to disparage. I think that is at least a valid position, just not one that I necessarily agree with.

sycasey;842326217 said:

---

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.

---

I don't see it as a distraction, because, like you said, this is one of many examples of cases that, in the aggregate, make the PTO inefficient and/or require increased budgets to expand the staff to handle the increased caseload. Whether the case was frivolous or not, it was still inappropriate to bring this case in order to put political pressure on the owner to change the name of the team. As someone already pointed out, losing your federal registration does not really affect your common law trademarks.

I looked into this a bit further. This was a petition brought by a group of native Americans to cancel the registration of the Redskins trademarks and filed with TTAB. So, while the lawyers for both parties would be funded by the two private parties, you are wasting the time of the 3 member TTAB administrative judges, both in the hearing, and in reading the briefs (there are many), ruling on motions, and finally, in issuing an opinion, not to mention the staff relied on by the administrative judges. This is not an insignificant amount of time and resources that would go into this. The plaintiffs were required to pay an $1800 filing fee to file the petition, but that would only cover about 1-2 days worth of work (being generous) of one lawyer/judge. This likely took much more than that.

Not only that, but this was already decided by the TTAB once, then appealed, likely to the Fed. Cir., and reversed, at which point the lawyers for the plaintiffs found a new set of plaintiffs in order to overcome the previous reason for the reversal. Furthermore, this new decision will likely be appealed to the Fed. Cir. and I think there is a good chance that it could be reversed on the merits (or not, it could go either way). So, you are looking at a case which has lasted all of a decade or more already (the second petition was filed in 2006) and has been argued twice at the PTO TTAB and once at the Fed. Cir. (with a likely second time to come).

so, I don't think it is specious argument at all... while the total sums aren't into the millions, I would guess they do reach into the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands on the part of the taxpayer. It is certainly a waste of taxpayers money with regard to binding up administrative functions, especially at the USPTO, which is already understaffed and underfunded. I am all for having public opinion put pressure on the owner to change the name as that doesn't waste TTAB's time and tax money on a private dispute.

briloker;842326343 said:

---

Do you condone the use of "******" or "nigga" by black guys versus white guys?

---

My point here is that there is something inherently offensive about some of these words. Words have meaning. Yes, the context can change that meaning sometimes, but I don't think it's true to say that the meaning only comes from intent. There is a certain inherent meaning it carries. The N-word carries a meaning. A rap artist like Kanye West may be changing that meaning in context, in the sense of "taking it back," but that contextual meaning still kind of relies upon the original meaning, which is that of an offensive racial slur.

So if you are going to use a word like "Redskin" to name a football team, you'd better have a really, REALLY good reason. I haven't really heard one yet.

briloker;842326346 said:

---

I don't see it as a distraction, because, like you said, this is one of many examples of cases that, in the aggregate, make the PTO inefficient and/or require increased budgets to expand the staff to handle the increased caseload. Whether the case was frivolous or not, it was still inappropriate to bring this case in order to put political pressure on the owner to change the name of the team. As someone already pointed out, losing your federal registration does not really affect your common law trademarks.

I looked into this a bit further. This was a petition brought by a group of native Americans to cancel the registration of the Redskins trademarks and filed with TTAB. So, while the lawyers for both parties would be funded by the two private parties, you are wasting the time of the 3 member TTAB administrative judges, both in the hearing, and in reading the briefs (there are many), ruling on motions, and finally, in issuing an opinion, not to mention the staff relied on by the administrative judges. This is not an insignificant amount of time and resources that would go into this. The plaintiffs were required to pay an $1800 filing fee to file the petition, but that would only cover about 1-2 days worth of work (being generous) of one lawyer/judge. This likely took much more than that.

Not only that, but this was already decided by the TTAB once, then appealed, likely to the Fed. Cir., and reversed, at which point the lawyers for the plaintiffs found a new set of plaintiffs in order to overcome the previous reason for the reversal. Furthermore, this new decision will likely be appealed to the Fed. Cir. and I think there is a good chance that it could be reversed on the merits (or not, it could go either way). So, you are looking at a case which has lasted all of a decade or more already (the second petition was filed in 2006) and has been argued twice at the PTO TTAB and once at the Fed. Cir. (with a likely second time to come).

so, I don't think it is specious argument at all... while the total sums aren't into the millions, I would guess they do reach into the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands on the part of the taxpayer. It is certainly a waste of taxpayers money with regard to binding up administrative functions, especially at the USPTO, which is already understaffed and underfunded. I am all for having public opinion put pressure on the owner to change the name as that doesn't waste TTAB's time and tax money on a private dispute.

---

I suppose you are right that it does cost SOME public money to hear a case like this, but the alternative is to say that these private parties should not be allowed to bring this case to court. Is that the argument here? If not, well, people have the right to bring lawsuits, and those lawsuits do require some public employees to spend time and resources hearing them. So while the sum is not zero, I don't see this as a major issue. Lawsuits related to patents and trademarks happen, and they are always going to happen. It's not the government taking the action here.

BTW, the previous ruling was overturned on more of a technicality; they decided the plaintiffs did not have the proper legal standing to bring a suit. The idea here is that the new plaintiffs do. I've read about equal arguments for or against on the question of whether or not it will be reversed on appeal, so I guess it could go either way.

CalZebra2012;842325970 said:

---

...that a substantial number of the members of that race don't sense.

What's really a concern for many Native Americans is the extreme poverty, alcoholism and illiteracy on reservations. But concentrate on a team name that at least intended on honoring that community because that's "progress," you feel better and best of all, it's easy. You're helping.

Isn't it curious that the Senate Democrats only circulated the NFL/Redskins petition to members of their own party? While they appear to be serving the Native American community, they are really using it as a political football.

---

If you can't see the connection between a slur and perpetuating conditions that afflict Native Americans, then you are either willfully ignoring the facts or you're much less intelligent than you think you are.

briloker;842326343 said:

---

Do you condone the use of "******" or "nigga" by black guys versus white guys? Are you saying that only black people should be allowed to use these terms? Frankly, I think most use of these words, by people of any race, has a disparaging intent and is not okay because of that intent. However, I am not gonna get bent out of shape if Kanye decides he likes to use it because I don't see his use of it as disparaging in context, nor if Macklemore or Eminem used it in their music either. And I don't think that every use of the words, by a person of any race, necessarily that intent. Obviously, there is typically a lot of artistic meaning to why it has found acceptable use in hip-hop, but that isn't really the point.

In other words, the context of the use of the terms is what matters, not the words themselves or even the race of the person who uses it. Or maybe you don't see the difference in that argument...

Do you disagree? Are you saying that white people can never use those terms without being racist but they are okay for use by black people? I think that is an ignorant, and quite possibly racist position. I would be more accepting of a counter argument that nobody, no matter what race, could ever use a word because the intent behind the word is always to disparage. I think that is at least a valid position, just not one that I necessarily agree with.

---

In one context it's a viscious epithet; in another it's used as a term of solidarity for insiders . It's not that difficult

GB54;842326389 said:

---

In one context it's a viscious epithet; in another it's used as a term of solidarity for insiders . It's not that difficult

---

Gb54 basically shot down your three long paragraphs of huff and puff with one sentence.

Honestly I don't understand this entire discussion. What is the harm in trying to be less offensive?

GB54;842326389 said:

---

In one context it's a viscious epithet; in another it's used as a term of solidarity for insiders . It's not that difficult

---

By that logic, couldn't you argue the same for the Redskins? In one context, "redskin" could be used as a slur. In another context , it can be used to refer to a professional football team whose history dates back several decades.

ducky23;842326429 said:

---

Honestly I don't understand this entire discussion. What is the harm in trying to be less offensive?

---

An NFL team might have to be called something else! It's a tragedy.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326444 said:

---

By that logic, couldn't you argue the same for the Redskins? In one context, "redskin" could be used as a slur. In another context , it can be used to refer to a professional football team whose history dates back several decades.

---

I think it all comes down to whether the group in question finds the use of the term offensive.

I have not seen a scientific poll, but I'm going to assume most black people are fine with other black people using the n-word. And if they're good with that, I'm not going to tell them how they should feel.

Now if most native Americans think that a football team using the term redskins is fine, more power to them. Unfortunately we don't know the answer to this. There was a 2004 poll that seemed to indicate that native Americans don't care. But a more recent study (by cal state san Bernadino) has debunked that poll and has concluded that the majority of native Americans do find the term offensive. If so, we should respect their wishes. It's really as simple as that.

sycasey;842326450 said:

---

An NFL team might have to be called something else! It's a tragedy.

---

An NFL team may continue using the same name it's been using for decades. What a travesty! This entire thread is comical. We have people justifying the use of the N word, people spouting off words like chink, chinaman, and a whole bunch of other racial epithets...and it's all coming from supposedly enlightened and more racially sensitive people opposed to an NFL team calling itself the Redskins. Look in the mirror, and then go look up the word, "hypocrite".

FiatSlug;842326381 said:

---

If you can't see the connection between a slur and perpetuating conditions that afflict Native Americans, then you are either willfully ignoring the facts or you're much less intelligent than you think you are.

---

The biggest problems facing Native Americans as a distinct community probably relate to the consequences of the removal such as a lack of infrastructure, isolation, unemployment, poor farm land, etc. Then there's the associated social consequences such as alcoholism, illiteracy and poverty. Given an opportunity, Indian activism in the 70's centered around tribal self-rule, health care, water rights, education, substance abuse treatment and housing. Those issues continue today.

The end of the Redskins name is inevitable and that's fine. The deluge of drama and emotion over it is wearying and distracts from the above issues. The mob has spoken and needs its sacrifice. When its appeased, it will disappear and the Native American community will resume its place in apathy. The bright spot is that more "intelligent" people will feel better about themselves.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326458 said:

---

This entire thread is comical. We have people justifying the use of the N word, people spouting off words like chink, chinaman, and a whole bunch of other racial epithets...and it's all coming from supposedly enlightened and more racially sensitive people opposed to an NFL team calling itself the Redskins. Look in the mirror, and then go look up the word, "hypocrite".

---

It is not hypocritical to use racial epithets in a discussion about the meanings of said words. How else are you supposed to discuss them?

The argument here is that it's not appropriate to use an epithet like "Redskin" in a non-academic setting like the name of a football team, not that the words can never be uttered ever.

YuSeeBerkeley;842326458 said:

---

An NFL team may continue using the same name it's been using for decades. What a travesty! This entire thread is comical. We have people justifying the use of the N word, people spouting off words like chink, chinaman, and a whole bunch of other racial epithets...and it's all coming from supposedly enlightened and more racially sensitive people opposed to an NFL team calling itself the Redskins. Look in the mirror, and then go look up the word, "hypocrite".

---

For someone who claims not to be bothered by names you seem very bothered.

GB54;842326389 said:

---

In one context it's a viscious epithet; in another it's used as a term of solidarity for insiders . It's not that difficult

---

Exactly my point, context matters. The difference in our views seems to be that you only see two possible contexts for use of those words whereas I am more open to other contexts as well. With regard to the N-word, I think the natural consequence of artists or the black community embracing those words, or "taking it back" is that the words now have a secondary meaning. Look at the example of Training Day and the use of denzel saying "my nigg@" to his white partner. That iconic movie quote was certainly repeated often and, in context, is not a racial slur but is instead a term of endearment or solidarity. Over time, that secondary meaning might replace the original meaning as use of a primarily racial slur.

With regard to Redskins as used in a team name in continuous use for decades, I don't think the context is disparaging currently, even if it would have been disparaging at the time. As someone else pointed out, it has gained a secondary meaning.

While I might disagree with naming a new team that name today, because it doesn't yet have that secondary meaning, I don't think it is as much of a problem with keeping a name and brand that has been around for so long and is not primarily used in a context meant to disparage a person based on his race.

briloker;842326481 said:

---

Exactly my point, context matters. The difference in our views seems to be that you only see two possible contexts for use of those words whereas I am more open to other contexts as well. With regard to the N-word, I think the natural consequence of artists or the black community embracing those words, or "taking it back" is that the words now have a secondary meaning. Look at the example of Training Day and the use of denzel saying "my nigg@" to his white partner. That iconic movie quote was certainly repeated often and, in context, is not a racial slur but is instead a term of endearment or solidarity. Over time, that secondary meaning might replace the original meaning as use of a primarily racial slur.

With regard to Redskins as used in a team name in continuous use for decades, I don't think the context is disparaging currently, even if it would have been disparaging at the time. As someone else pointed out, it has gained a secondary meaning.

While I might disagree with naming a new team that name today, because it doesn't yet have that secondary meaning, I don't think it is as much of a problem with keeping a name and brand that has been around for so long and is not primarily used in a context meant to disparage a person based on his race.

---

I think there is a debate in the black community about whether the vernacular use of the word encourages use rather than takes away its power through the ironic inside-out way young blacks use it. For me though-a white person-that argument is moot. I don't have permission to use it.

With regard to Redskins, I think a slur acquires a secondary meaning for those who don't think it's a slur. I don't think it necessarily acquires a secondary meaning for those who are offended. The context here is that those who are offended are for the most part out of sight and out of mind- unlike blacks. If they don't want it used than I say remove it. A commercial enterprise shouldn't offend a people who have been crapped on for centuries.

Here's what's great about living in a free country: If someone has has a product you find offensive, you don't have to buy it. You are also free to persuade others not to buy the product.

Here's what's bad about living under tyranny. Unelected or elected "officials" get to decide what products you should buy and what is deemed to be "offensive".

I know which kind of country I would rather live in.

CalLax;842326484 said:

---

Here's what's great about living in a free country: If someone has has a product you find offensive, you don't have to buy it. You are also free to persuade others not to buy the product.

Here's what's bad about living under tyranny. Unelected or elected "officials" get to decide what products you should buy and what is deemed to be "offensive".

I know which kind of country I would rather live in.

---

It's a good thing we live in the first one, then.

Daniel Snyder, the new Patrick Henry

CalLax;842326484 said:

---

Here's what's great about living in a free country: If someone has has a product you find offensive, you don't have to buy it. You are also free to persuade others not to buy the product.

Here's what's bad about living under tyranny. Unelected or elected "officials" get to decide what products you should buy and what is deemed to be "offensive".

I know which kind of country I would rather live in.

---

To be clear: You're upset at the federal government for removing a protection originally granted by the federal government. That is rich. You can't have it both ways, buddy.

grandmastapoop;842326490 said:

---

To be clear: You're upset at the federal government for removing a protection originally granted by the federal government. That is rich. You can't have it both ways, buddy.

---

Also, the government is not preventing the Washington Redskins from doing business. They are still allowed to sell tickets and people are still allowed to buy them. All that happened here is that the federal government said they will no longer defend any trademarks related to their name (pending appeal). As other legal experts have noted, they can still probably defend those trademarks in court based on common law -- it just becomes harder without the official federal protection.

Let's not blow this up to be more than it is. The government is not taking the Redskins' name away. This is the result of a suit brought by a private party, the ruling in which merely creates additional incentive for them to change the name.

Do you know what "equal protection under the law" means, buddy? It means laws shouldn't be selectively ignored or enforced based on the whim of those currently in power.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that this ruling comes down on the heels of Harry Reid and bunch of his buddies making an issue of this on the Senate floor?

Do you really want the government withholding protection from certain people or businesses because they are not favored by those in power?

CalLax;842326494 said:

---

Do you know what "equal protection under the law" means, buddy? It means laws shouldn't be selectively ignored or enforced based on the whim of those currently in power.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that this ruling comes down on the heels of Harry Reid and bunch of his buddies making an issue of this on the Senate floor?

Do you really want the government withholding protection from certain people or businesses because they are not favored by those in power?

---

Yes I do know what it means. And I know that the law states that the federal government will not defend trademarks that are offensive. Did you know that, buddy? And do I need to spell out the implication here? Or can you figure that on your own?

CalLax;842326494 said:

---

Do you know what "equal protection under the law" means, buddy? It means laws shouldn't be selectively ignored or enforced based on the whim of those currently in power.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that this ruling comes down on the heels of Harry Reid and bunch of his buddies making an issue of this on the Senate floor?

Do you really want the government withholding protection from certain people or businesses because they are not favored by those in power?

---

Careful. Next they'll be accusing you of starting ANOTHER "fake" scandal.

CalLax;842326494 said:

---

Do you know what "equal protection under the law" means, buddy? It means laws shouldn't be selectively ignored or enforced based on the whim of those currently in power.

---

It's not being selectively enforced. There is already a law stating that the federal government will not provide trademark protection to offensive words (including racial slurs). If anything, it was selective enforcement before to allow the Redskins to continue using the name under protection.

The case has also been in process for years now, well before Harry Reid ever said anything about the issue. So yes, it is entirely possible that the timing here is a coincidence.

CalLax;842326494 said:

---

Do you know what "equal protection under the law" means, buddy? It means laws shouldn't be selectively ignored or enforced based on the whim of those currently in power.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that this ruling comes down on the heels of Harry Reid and bunch of his buddies making an issue of this on the Senate floor?

Do you really want the government withholding protection from certain people or businesses because they are not favored by those in power?

---

You mean like the government refusing to recognize treaties with numerous Indian tribes or refusing to enforce Supreme Court decrees regarding their rights. Or do you mean only protections for the "white men's rights".:p
Kimosabe.:p

What's interesting to me is that no one gave two shits about this topic for the good part of 81 years until the media decided to make it an issue and bring the political posturing baggage with it.

The irony with our government suddenly "taking a stand" against what they now deem to be a racial slur, is that they had no problem taking, if not outright stealing, land from the general Indian population when it suited their needs.

If the government really cared for the Indian people they might want to try harder with alleviating all the rampant alcoholism, drug use, education and poverty issues that still exist throughout this country. Instead, our government sees opportunity to use this topic for political gain because they know they have the media lemmings to carry out their message of offense and racial division.

Sad.

Wonder if Harry Reid will ask this Navajo high school (on the reservation) to change it's name from "Redskins" to something else. The are clearly behind the times and engaged in self-directed racism because they are using a racial slur to describe themselves. We have to help them.

http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com/home

Seems like there's a troll infestation.