Washington Reedskyns (TM)

[Bench]

The USPTO has cancelled the Washington D.C. NFL team's trademark for its team name calling it "disparaging."  Fortunately, unlike patents, USPTO trademark decisions will not be invalidated because of obviousness.

[subnuclear]

I don't know anything about trademark law, but I'm guessing this doesn't hold up very long.

[HudsonHawk]

I don't know anything about trademark law, but I'm guessing this doesn't hold up very long.

I don't know.  This isn't the first time this has been ruled.  The last time it was overturned because the plaintiffs were "too old".  This time, however, it's a new group, who apparently have the legal standing to file.  There is no doubt the name is offensive and violates the trademark prohibitions. 

[Bench]

I don't know.  This isn't the first time this has been ruled.  The last time it was overturned because the plaintiffs were "too old".  This time, however, it's a new group, who apparently have the legal standing to file.  There is no doubt the name is offensive and violates the trademark prohibitions. 

I was wondering what the standing issue was last time around, but I haven't had time to look into it.  I figured maybe only a competitor who was trying to use the trademark commercially would have standing, but that wouldn't make much sense given the rule that a trademark can't be disparaging.  Needless to say, I don't know much about trademark law. 

[HudsonHawk]

I was wondering what the standing issue was last time around, but I haven't had time to look into it.  I figured maybe only a competitor who was trying to use the trademark commercially would have standing, but that wouldn't make much sense given the rule that a trademark can't be disparaging.  Needless to say, I don't know much about trademark law. 

The standing issue last time, as I understand it, was that the court said the people who claimed offense shouldn't have waited nearly 30 years to file, if they were really offended.  It was kind of a statute of limitation issue, I guess.  This time, the plaintiffs are younger, and weren't around in 1967 when the trademark was issued.  From what I've read, that should make all the difference.

[Uncle Charlie]

There is no doubt the name is offensive and violates the trademark prohibitions. 

It's amazing to me that the NFL, for all of its concern about "The Shield", didn't get ahead of this and get a name change done.  When you look at the names of teams, this one stands out like a sore thumb.  Hell, keep the symbol and name the team Warriors (or something of the sort).  If anyone were to try to name a team "Blackskins" or "Whiteskins" or...well you get the point.  This is epically bad in today's historical context.

[Bench]

It's amazing to me that the NFL, for all of its concern about "The Shield", didn't get ahead of this and get a name change done.  When you look at the names of teams, this one stands out like a sore thumb.  Hell, keep the symbol and name the team Warriors (or something of the sort).  If anyone were to try to name a team "Blackskins" or "Whiteskins" or...well you get the point.  This is epically bad in today's historical context.

It's also amazing to me that Snyder and the others' primary argument is "No, it's not offensive." 

[Duke]

It's also amazing to me that Snyder and the others' primary argument is "No, it's not offensive." 
[/quote}]
I'm 1/8th Arapahoe and I never thought that Blackhawks or Braves or Chiefs were offensive.  But Redskins always seemed akin to yellow peril.

[Duke]

It's also amazing to me that Snyder and the others' primary argument is "No, it's not offensive." 

[austro]

It's also amazing to me that Snyder and the others' primary argument is "No, it's not offensive." 

Doubling down on stupid is the new national pastime.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

If I wanted to be offended I would be.

[Duke]

If I wanted to be offended I would be.

Isn't that the way it usually goes

[EasTexAstro]

Dadgum Vikings.

[morningwood75]

Wasn't this a term used to describe the Indians who used red pigment to paint their bodies and faces? Why is this term so offensive?

[HudsonHawk]

Wasn't this a term used to describe the Indians who used red pigment to paint their bodies and faces? Why is this term so offensive?

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic because even you can't possibly be this literally stupid.

[morningwood75]

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic because even you can't possibly be this literally stupid.

Even me? You have no idea who I am. You know nothing about me. WTF? Some of the Algonquian tribes were referred to as redskins due to their red face and body paint. Other tribes referred to themselves as redskins in a prideful manner to separate from whites and blacks. Why is the term redskin inherently offensive? Is it proven that redskin equals scalp?

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

[Bench]

Congratulations on finding an obscure definitional context for a term that by its most widely recognized modern meaning is purely derogatory.  Great scholarship.  Next will you tell us about bundles of sticks?

[morningwood75]

Congratulations on finding an obscure definitional context for a term that by its most widely recognized modern meaning is purely derogatory.  Great scholarship.  Next will you tell us about bundles of sticks?

Fuck off. Politically correct cocksucker.

[juliogotay]

Congratulations on finding an obscure definitional context for a term that by its most widely recognized modern meaning is purely derogatory.  Great scholarship.  Next will you tell us about bundles of sticks?

So, the idea behind the nickname is to be as intentionally offensive as possible  to a group without any possible subtext that may have been acceptable at the time or had some basis in custom at the time?  And you're sure of this?

[Bench]

Politically correct cocksucker.

Funny, considering none of those terms are actually inherently offensive. 

[Bench]

So, the idea behind the nickname is to be as intentionally offensive as possible  to a group without any possible subtext that may have been acceptable at the time or had some basis in custom at the time?  And you're sure of this?

Not the issue.

[Lefty]

I would love to know the percentage of Native Americans who are upset about this versus the percentage of white people who are upset about this.

[Limey]

Even me? You have no idea who I am. You know nothing about me. WTF? Some of the Algonquian tribes were referred to as redskins due to their red face and body paint. Other tribes referred to themselves as redskins in a prideful manner to separate from whites and blacks. Why is the term redskin inherently offensive? Is it proven that redskin equals scalp?

African Americans often use, as a term of endearment, a word derived from pre-emancipation days.  Washington DC has a large African-American population. Maybe the Washington NFL franchise could adopt that term as it's name instead.  I'm sure the vast majority of people would understand the context. 

[Mr. Happy]

I would love to know the percentage of Native Americans who are upset about this versus the percentage of white people who are upset about this.

Exactly. People are going out of their way to be offended today. If Harry Reid really gave two shits about the native Americans, he'd have been pushing legislation to provide some greater aid to some of the poorest reservations. This is all about political opportunism and squelching free speech.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Fuck off. Politically correct cocksucker.

If I wanted to be offended...

[subnuclear]

I go to New Mexico a couple times a year for work and I can't imagine referring to any of the Native Americans there as 'Redskins' either to their face or to anyone else. It's just a crude term.

I expect Dan Snyder to fight this because that's what he does and he has a lot of money and likes to get his way. 

[HudsonHawk]

Even me? You have no idea who I am. You know nothing about me. WTF?

I've read what you've posted before.

Why is the term redskin inherently offensive?

It's not inherently offensive, it's offensive by the way it's been used to describe an ethnicity.  Do you not understand this?

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

Do not copy and paste like that.  Links and/or brief passages are fine, but not large swaths of someone else's work.

[HudsonHawk]

I would love to know the percentage of Native Americans who are upset about this versus the percentage of white people who are upset about this.

I can't imagine a Native American who is not offended by the term.  I don't know any.

[Bench]

Exactly. People are going out of their way to be offended today. If Harry Reid really gave two shits about the native Americans, he'd have been pushing legislation to provide some greater aid to some of the poorest reservations. This is all about political opportunism and squelching free speech.

Free speech?  You know better than that.

[HudsonHawk]

Free speech?  You know better than that.

When my trademark application for "Houston Motherfuckers" is turned down, I'll be hiring Mr. Happy as my attorney to sue the government.

[Bench]

When my trademark application for "Houston Motherfuckers" is turned down, I'll be hiring Mr. Happy as my attorney to sue the government.

Having a trademark on a word or phrase is itself a suppression of free speech. 

[Ron Brand]

When my trademark application for "Houston Motherfuckers" is turned down, I'll be hiring Mr. Happy as my attorney to sue the government.

I'm still waiting on my application for "The Darktown Roundeyes."

[Bench]

Come on folks.  We're getting very close to a Bingo.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

If I were Snyder I'd give in to the pressure to change the name to something less offensive, like maybe the Washington "Chief Wahoos!!"

[Mr. Happy]

Free speech?  You know better than that.

I was speaking to the larger question of political correctness squelching free speech.

[juliogotay]

I can't imagine a Native American who is not offended by the term.  I don't know any.

I'm not defending the name. It is outdated.  But in reference to what you write here, I saw in a Wikipedia article, which really gave a rather complete, detailed and balanced accounting of the term and its' use by the Washington team that according to a SI poll in 2002 found 75% of American Indians found no objection to the name. In 2004 an Annenberg Public Policy Center (U of PA.) poll found 91% of American Indians polled in the 48 mainland states found the term acceptable. Maybe those numbers have reversed since then but as late as ten years ago it wasn't overwhelmingly criticized by the native Americans. I don't think anyone can accuse SI or Annenberg for being conservative propagandists. There is also information in the Historical Use of the term outlining the dying of the skin pigment by some groups and referring to themselves as redskins. It adds that "Oklahoma" translates to "red people". The link is here for anyone interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

[subnuclear]

Come on folks.  We're getting very close to a Bingo.

In bingo do you need they need to be in a row, or will one in each column work?

[HudsonHawk]

I'm not defending the name. It is outdated.  But in reference to what you write here, I saw in a Wikipedia article, which really gave a rather complete, detailed and balanced accounting of the term and its' use by the Washington team that according to a SI poll in 2002 found 75% of American Indians found no objection to the name. In 2004 an Annenberg Public Policy Center (U of PA.) poll found 91% of American Indians polled in the 48 mainland states found the term acceptable. Maybe those numbers have reversed since then but as late as ten years ago it wasn't overwhelmingly criticized by the native Americans. I don't think anyone can accuse SI or Annenberg for being conservative propagandists. There is also information in the Historical Use of the term outlining the dying of the skin pigment by some groups and referring to themselves as redskins. It adds that "Oklahoma" translates to "red people". The link is here for anyone interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

It's not "outdate", it's a racial slur.  And you're missing the point about the term.  No one is arguing that there is something inherently offensive in the term.  It's the way it's used in a derogatory manner that is offensive.

[HudsonHawk]

I was speaking to the larger question of political correctness squelching free speech.

You know better than that too.

[mrpink]

It's not "outdate", it's a racial slur.  And you're missing the point about the term.  No one is arguing that there is something inherently offensive in the term.  It's the way it's used in a derogatory manner that is offensive.

I've never in my life heard Redskin used in a derogatory manner. I'm willing to bet most people can say the same.

[HudsonHawk]

I've never in my life heard Redskin used in a derogatory manner. I'm willing to bet most people can say the same.

You've heard it used as a term of endearment? 

[Dark Star]

When my trademark application for "Houston Motherfuckers" is turned down, I'll be hiring Mr. Happy as my attorney to sue the government.

Nothing against Happy as an attorney (except I don't think he practices nowadays); but I'm hiring the Sokolove Firm, 'cos they've won, like, elevnty billion dollars in settlements for maso- ... meeza- ... some sort of asbestos related something-or-other.

That's a pretty darn good record, G.

[HudsonHawk]

Nothing against Happy as an attorney (except I don't think he practices nowadays); but I'm hiring the Sokolove Firm, 'cos they've won, like, elevnty billion dollars in settlements for maso- ... meeza- ... some sort of asbestos related something-or-other.

That's a pretty darn good record, G.

If I'm suing for money, I'm hiring the guy who wears the hat and tells me "you've got enough to worry about".  Because I like hats.

[mrpink]

You've heard it used as a term of endearment? 

I don't think anyone uses it to describe anything but a football team that plays in DC. Have you ever heard someone call a Native American a Redskin? Be honest now.

[Dark Star]

I don't think anyone uses it to describe anything but a football team that plays in DC. Have you ever heard someone call a Native American a Redskin? Be honest now.

Harry Flashman did, motherfucker.

[Bench]

I don't think anyone uses it to describe anything but a football team that plays in DC. Have you ever heard someone call a Native American a Redskin? Be honest now.

Delusional. 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't think anyone uses it to describe anything but a football team that plays in DC. Have you ever heard someone call a Native American a Redskin? Be honest now.

Of course.  I can't believe you haven't.

[mrpink]

Of course.  I can't believe you haven't.

Of course I haven't. I can't believe you have...excluding Flashman anyway.

[Mr. Happy]

You know better than that too.

You don't think that free speech is squelched in the name of political correctness? If so, you had best think again. I believe that people like Donald Sterling have the right to say what they believe. I have the right to react to their statements. If I'm offended by his obviously racist comments, then I have the right to boycott his team. But I don't have the right to shut him up. That's a big difference between liberals and conservatives. In the liberal way of thought, you either agree with them or shut up because you have no right to think that way. Our liberties are eroding before our very eyes, folks.

[HudsonHawk]

You don't think that free speech is squelched in the name of political correctness? If so, you had best think again. I believe that people like Donald Sterling have the right to say what they believe. I have the right to react to their statements. If I'm offended by his obviously racist comments, then I have the right to boycott his team. But I don't have the right to shut him up.

Of course you do. That's the whole point in boycotting his product.  That's using your rights as a consumer.  When the federal government prosecutes someone for being politically incorrect, you'll have a point.  Until then, you're reaching.  And you know it.

That's a big difference between liberals and conservatives. In the liberal way of thought, you either agree with them or shut up because you have no right to think that way. Our liberties are eroding before our very eyes, folks.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that rights and liberty should apply to everyone.  Conservatives believe it should only apply to them.

[subnuclear]

Of course I haven't. I can't believe you have...excluding Flashman anyway.

I can't remember if I ever had, but it is still not something I would want to call anyone.

[juliogotay]

Of course you do. That's the whole point in boycotting his product.  That's using your rights as a consumer.  When the federal government prosecutes someone for being politically incorrect, you'll have a point.  Until then, you're reaching.  And you know it.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that rights and liberty should apply to everyone.  Conservatives believe it should only apply to them.

Bullshit. And the IRS didn't get the memo.

[HudsonHawk]

Bullshit. And the IRS didn't get the memo.

How has the IRS limited your free speech?

[Bench]

You don't think that free speech is squelched in the name of political correctness? If so, you had best think again. I believe that people like Donald Sterling have the right to say what they believe. I have the right to react to their statements. If I'm offended by his obviously racist comments, then I have the right to boycott his team. But I don't have the right to shut him up. That's a big difference between liberals and conservatives. In the liberal way of thought, you either agree with them or shut up because you have no right to think that way. Our liberties are eroding before our very eyes, folks.

You've fallen into the free speech fool's trap.  The right to free speech is not the right to consequence-free speech, unless the government is the one imposing the consequence, and then it is subject to scrutiny. 

You don't think the NBA is free to conduct its business as a private entity without external interference?  It doesn't have a right to react to one of its member's statements but you do?  What has the government done to shut Donald Sterling up?  Again, you're an attorney.  You should know better.

[Mr. Happy]

You've fallen into the free speech fool's trap.  The right to free speech is not the right to consequence-free speech, unless the government is the one imposing the consequence, and then it is subject to scrutiny. 

You don't think the NBA is free to conduct its business as a private entity without external interference?  It doesn't have a right to react to one of its member's statements but you do?  What has the government done to shut Donald Sterling up?  Again, you're an attorney.  You should know better.

The NBA has a contract and constitution that governs its relationship with an owner. As long as they follow that constitution, I have no problem with whatever they decide to do. I never said that there was a right to consequence-free speech. In fact, I said just the opposite-that he's free to say whatever he wants, and I'm free to react to it.

[Bench]

The NBA has a contract and constitution that governs its relationship with an owner. As long as they follow that constitution, I have no problem with whatever they decide to do. I never said that there was a right to consequence-free speech. In fact, I said just the opposite-that he's free to say whatever he wants, and I'm free to react to it.

So you accept that all of this has fuck all to do with "free speech"?

[Mr. Happy]

Of course you do. That's the whole point in boycotting his product.  That's using your rights as a consumer.  When the federal government prosecutes someone for being politically incorrect, you'll have a point.  Until then, you're reaching.  And you know it.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that rights and liberty should apply to everyone.  Conservatives believe it should only apply to them.

HH: you obviously don't understand true conservatism. I'm not talking about the right-wing element that seeks to limit people's rights. They're no better than the political correctness police on the left. In fact, I distance myself from that crowd altogether. I put the mainstream Republican Party in that category. I'm not a Republican in spirit. I believe in liberty. I have a strong attraction to libertarianism, even though I wouldn't even put myself squarely in their camp.

[HudsonHawk]

HH: you obviously don't understand true conservatism.

You obviously don't understand true liberalism.

[Dark Star]

All in all, arguing whether a sports team's name is offensive to native Americans or not seems fairly minor, considering some of the really offensive things visited upon them over the years.

[HudsonHawk]

All in all, arguing whether a sports team's name is offensive to native Americans or not seems fairly minor, considering some of the really offensive things visited upon them over the years.

True, it's not creating the wounds, but it *is* throwing salt on them.  Why continue doing so?

[Mr. Happy]

You obviously don't understand true liberalism.

Find me some true liberals who subscribe to those ideals. Those who are liberals in the country today hardly fit that definition.

[Dark Star]

True, it's not creating the wounds, but it *is* throwing salt on them.  Why continue doing so?

Yeah, what is the justification? Tradition?

Hell of a goddamn tradition.

[HudsonHawk]

Find me some true liberals who subscribe to those ideals. Those who are liberals in the country today hardly fit that definition.

Besides me?  And I could say the same for your definition of conservatives.

[Limey]

I was speaking to the larger question of political correctness squelching free speech.

If a lot of people stating their opinion that the thing you said is stupid, that's not suppressing free speech, that's a public service. 

[NeilT]

I was speaking to the larger question of political correctness squelching free speech.

There you go trying to squelch my free-speech right to use political correctness to squelch your free speech.  I'm so confused.

[Ebby Calvin]

There you go trying to squelch my free-speech right to use political correctness to squelch your free speech.  I'm so confused.

I blame Obama.

[Limey]

Find me some true liberals who subscribe to those ideals. Those who are liberals in the country today hardly fit that definition.

There are so few liberals in this country.  Obama's free market-driven healthcare plan would make Margaret Thatcher's brain hurt.  (Reagan's too). 

[Mr. Happy]

Besides me?  And I could say the same for your definition of conservatives.

Actually, I said the same thing earlier. Down deep, I'm a classic liberal. However, liberalism has morphed into something that is antithetical to classic liberalism. I'm for limited government and taking the constitution at its word and going back to the founders, with the exception of the racial issue.

[Mr. Happy]

If a lot of people stating their opinion that the thing you said is stupid, that's not suppressing free speech, that's a public service. 

Fuck off, Limey. No one asked you.

[Bench]

Actually, I said the same thing earlier. Down deep, I'm a classic liberal. However, liberalism has morphed into something that is antithetical to classic liberalism. I'm for limited government and taking the constitution at its word and going back to the founders, with the exception of the racial issue.

Weird exception.

[Mr. Happy]

Weird exception.

No, it isn't. It's about treating all human beings as equal. Nothing weird about it.

[Limey]

Fuck off, Limey. No one asked you.

I think you took that as a personal jibe, which it wasn't.  It was a jibe at the notion that "political correctness" suppresses free speech, when in actuality it is itself free speech, but with many voices. 

[Bench]

No, it isn't. It's about treating all human beings as equal. Nothing weird about it.

What about the gender issue?

[Mr. Happy]

What about the gender issue?

Forgot about that one. You're right. I very much favor every citizen having the right to vote.

[NeilT]

What about the gender issue?

And I very much favor every citizen having at least one gender.

[Bench]

And I very much favor every citizen having at least one gender.

You so cisnormative.