Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

The Morning News: Washington Redskins' Trademark Is Canceled Because That Name Is "Disparaging to Native Americans"

Posted by on Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:54 AM

This stuff is offensive, says the US Patent and Trademark Office.

In Landmark Decision, U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark for Redskins Football Team: That's the headline up at Think Progress, where the story broke this morning. The plaintiff's lawyer says, "We presented a wide variety of evidence—including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups—to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur." Where is all this evidence so you can look at it? It's right here; knock yourself out.

Any Normal Person Doesn't Need 177 Pages of Evidence to See That It's Offensive: Just a couple days ago, Harry Reid said he wouldn't attend any more Redskins games until they changed the name. He wrote to team management on June 12:

I have worked to right many of the injustices endured by Americans throughout the country. Among the most egregious in the history of our country are those injustices inflicted upon American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. This is personal for me. I represent 27 tribes as the Senator from Nevada and have worked to protect their homelands and their sovereignty. I have a duty to ensure that the United States uphold centuries-old treaty and trust obligations towards Native Americans, and I take this responsibility very seriously.

I will not stand idly by while a professional sports team promotes a racial slur as a team name and disparages the American people. Nor will I consider your invitation to attend a home game until your organization chooses to do the right thing and change its offensive name.

This Ruling Was Not Made Hastily: This is years and years in the making, the Washington Post reports. By the way, the owner of the team says "the name and logo honor Native Americans." Ha! Here's an open letter to that guy published on Grantland last year.

Other Reactions: Are here and here and here and here. Although this local conservative woman is pissed. (It's been their name for 80 years so it's fine? Quick, someone tell her about history.)

So What Should the Team Name Be Changed To? Sure, sure, this is going to be tied up in appeals for another eight years or whatever, but let's come up with some good alternatives that aren't clearly offensive to entire races of marginalized peoples. Leave them in the comments and we'll put up a Slog poll later.

Speaking of Football, a Guy in Michigan Tried to Throw a Drug-Filled Football Into a Prison Yard: According to reports, "the ball contained heroin, marijuana, tobacco, three cellphones and chargers." Good thinking! He remembered chargers. Sadly, the the throw came up short and the ball landed "between two fences and not in the yard where prisoners exercise." Then he was arrested.

Another Story About a Guy and a Fence: This guy allegedly tried to break into a power station in Renton last night and ended up causing an explosion, being badly burned, and having to go to the hospital while about 2,800 customers were out of power for a few hours.

King County Property Values: Are skyrocketing.

Should the US Conduct Airstrikes on These Sunni Militants in Iraq? The president's thinking about it.

The Debate Over PrEP, the New HIV Pill that Can Prevent Infection: The New York Times Opinion section hosts a roundtable thingy.

In Case You Missed Hari Kondabolu's Set on Conan O'Brien on Monday: Or even if you didn't miss it and just wanna watch it again...

 

Comments (76) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
No air strikes in Iraq.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, balked at the benefit of a U.S. air attack, predicting that it might do more harm than good.

“The president should be wary of calls to intervene militarily through an air campaign that will not affect the strategic balance on the battlefield, and is as likely to alienate the local population as it is to accomplish any tactical objective,” Schiff said.

“Our limited intelligence and the civilian nature of the battle space make the use of our air power even more problematic,” he said. “We do not want to be perceived as siding with Shia over Sunnis in another increasingly sectarian conflict, which would inevitably be the case if we should unintentionally cause Sunni civilian casualties.”



http://tinyurl.com/kv2tppe
Posted by cgd on June 18, 2014 at 9:03 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 2
Although I usually think PETA goes way too far, I felt their solution to the Washington Redskins name was perfect:

http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/igc/redski…
Posted by Urgutha Forka on June 18, 2014 at 9:03 AM · Report this
3
Correction. Here's the link for that quote above @1:

http://tinyurl.com/qamgqjr

Additional context:
http://tinyurl.com/oxdm4h2
http://tinyurl.com/pnavwfa
Posted by cgd on June 18, 2014 at 9:09 AM · Report this
DOUG. 4
I didn't know Tim Tebow had moved to Michigan.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on June 18, 2014 at 9:12 AM · Report this
guerre 5
The Washington Dispossession!
The Washington Expropriated!
The Washington Colonized!
The Washington Unreparated!
The Washington Fightin' Unrenumerated!
Posted by guerre on June 18, 2014 at 9:18 AM · Report this
6 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
Max Solomon 7
Hahahaha, Daniel Snyder! HA, I say! HA!

Posted by Max Solomon on June 18, 2014 at 9:32 AM · Report this
hillpagan 8
The Pigskins
Posted by hillpagan on June 18, 2014 at 9:32 AM · Report this
9
Washington Warriors
Washington Shamans
Posted by Proud Native on June 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM · Report this
Baconcat 10
The best part of this whole thing is that the name wasn't selected to honor Native Americans or the dubiously Native American Lone Star Dietz -- it was a marketing ploy. Native mascots were popular at the time (similar to the late-1940s and Termination Era proliferation) and it was renamed to differentiate things a little: http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/05/…

Anyway, everyone knows they should be renamed the Washington Escalators.
Posted by Baconcat on June 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM · Report this
venomlash 11
They could always reach out to local Native American groups, rename themselves the Washington Piscataway, make their logo a longhouse, and instate as mascot Tayac, a respectful depiction of an Algonquin chief present only in images and not portrayed by a white dude in redface.
Posted by venomlash on June 18, 2014 at 9:37 AM · Report this
12

Removing trademark protection does not remove the ability of the team to use it. It simply opens it up for anyone else to use and make money off the use of it. To some extent it hits them in the pocketbook. To another, it opens Pandora's box.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on June 18, 2014 at 9:37 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 13
The Redskins patent ruling is not a landmark decision, as the same decision was made 20 years ago.

The only real question is how the appeal is going to go. The team won the appeal the first time around, so who knows what will happen this time.

What I find amusing is that many American Indians hate the term "Native American," as it was just another name foisted upon them by uncaring whites. The roots of the term "Indian" do not even come from the idea that Columbus thought he was in India, it was a bastardization of a translation that roughly meant "people of God." Ever wonder why Indian groups call themselves Indians and not Native Americans?

Kind of seems like to me this issue is the same: white people have decided a group of people finds something offensive, despite what the actual group believes.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 18, 2014 at 9:52 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 14
This decision is going to be appealed from now until the end of time, and even then, it won't stop them from using the name. This is a non-story. An important non-story, but a non-story nevertheless.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on June 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM · Report this
15
Rename the Redskins?

Suggestion 1: I suggest the change to the Washington Lou Gehrigs! It works because they all stand a much heightened risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases!!!

Suggestion 2: The Washington Cady Stantons, because why the hell not?!
Posted by LukeJoe on June 18, 2014 at 9:54 AM · Report this
levide 16
A case of copyright law supporting common sense. Don't see that every day.
Posted by levide on June 18, 2014 at 9:55 AM · Report this
17
Taking bets the SCOTUS bigoted 5 conservative majority overturns this when a lawsuit is filed?
Posted by araucania on June 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM · Report this
Demetria 18
Washington Chickenhawks.
Posted by Demetria on June 18, 2014 at 9:58 AM · Report this
19
Waaahhh. My feewings are hurt Mommy government! Waaaahhh.

Thanks to liberal morons the federal government is now your helicopter mom. Idiots.

There's a hill near Yakima called, for reasons its shape makes clear, Squaw Tit. Some liberal idiot complained, and the name was officially changed. Know what everyone who matters from Yakima still calls Squaw Tit? Yep, that's right.
Posted by Seattleblues on June 18, 2014 at 10:04 AM · Report this
20
@2 FTW. I don't see how anything else can come close.
Posted by originalcinner on June 18, 2014 at 10:05 AM · Report this
21
@19, u mad bro?
Posted by GermanSausage on June 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 22
@14: It will depend on how much Snyder values his merchandising machine over the nostalgia of the name.

Snyder's resistance is basically a result of living his entire life as a Washington Redskins fan. As a fellow lifetime fan, I can understand the reluctance.

He is already a mega-billionaire, but if the team (one of the most valuable frachises in the world), loses a lot of revenue due to not having a copyrighted logo/name, it may change his mind.

Snyder owns the name "Washington Warriors," so that is where the best bet is from a change perspective. Personally, I like "Washington Monuments."

A name change does not bother me too much, but it would ruin the Washington fight song, which is by far the best fight song in pro sports.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 18, 2014 at 10:08 AM · Report this
23
Washington Taxpayer Subsidized Stadium Builders?
Washington Brain Traumas?
Washington Non-Profit League Ha Ha Isn't That Hilarious?
Washington Endless Commercial Breaks?
Washington Name Classified For National Security?
Washington Pay-To-Play?
Washington Major Donor Access Only?
Washington Corporate Money Water Boys?
Washington K-Street Gangbangers?
Posted by screed on June 18, 2014 at 10:08 AM · Report this
Posted by Fred Casely on June 18, 2014 at 10:12 AM · Report this
Y 25
@19 I want a helicopter mom!
Posted by Y http://facebook.com/ymarksthespot on June 18, 2014 at 10:26 AM · Report this
26
Hillary and Hegemony


If we have to use force, it is because we are America.
Madeleine Albright, secretary of state, 1998

It is a tremendous day for Seattle, über neocon/right-winger, Hillary Clinton, is here for her book tour!

Hillary, who as Obama’s secretary of state, appointed a member of George W. Bush’s inner circle, Marc Grossman (and Walker-Bush family relative), to her State Department.

Hillary, who as Obama’s secretary of state, appointed neocon Victoria Nuland (Nuland’s husband being a founding member of PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century), to her State Department, whereupon Nuland immediately began manipulating governing changes in Ukraine, changing it into Nulandistan --- and today we see those results!

Hillary, who as Senator Clinton, attended those uber right-wing prayer breakfasts in the Bush White House (I believe the only so-called democrat to do so).

Hillary, who as Senator Clinton, enjoyed a neocon voting record, whose major donors were the Indian jobs offshoring firm, the Tata Consultancy, and Rupert Murdoch.

Hillary, who as Senator Clinton, convinced the Tata Consultancy to open an office in Buffalo, New York, “to improve their economy”!?

Offshore even more jobs to “improve their economy”?!?! Only a brain dead rightwing illiterate who dares call themselves a “democrat” would believe such bullcrap!

The demise of the American gene pool was signaled during Wisconsin’s failed gubernatorial recall of Gov. Walker, who was anti-worker and anti-union and was working to end collective bargaining and turn Wisconsin into a “right-to-work” state!

Bill Clinton, who did the very same thing Gov. Walker was attempting to do when Clinton was governor of Arkansas (turned that state into a “right-to-work” state) was greeted with thunderous applause and cheers by the brain dead union workers when he arrived there to give a speech. (FYI: During the first election, Gov. Walker was voted in by 40% of union households --- in the recall election, Gov. Walker again won and was again voted in by slightly more than 40% of union households!)
More...
Posted by sgt_doom on June 18, 2014 at 10:28 AM · Report this
27
While I do like the sound of "Chickenhawks" probably the Washington Hegemons would be a bit more on target.

Important article/site of the day:

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/06/ci…
Posted by sgt_doom on June 18, 2014 at 10:34 AM · Report this
masque of owls 28
@19, so the requirement to be "someone who matters from Yakima" is to be a racist shitstain? Check.
Posted by masque of owls on June 18, 2014 at 10:36 AM · Report this
29
There truly has never been a more benevolent force for good on this earth than guilty white liberals being offended on the behalf of others. Furthermore, as a descendent of Irish slaves, I am deeply offended by the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and demand that their namesake and mascot be changed immediately.

#Culturenotacostume #Reparationsnow
Posted by William F. Fuckley on June 18, 2014 at 10:37 AM · Report this
30
@22, you're kidding right? Now that merchandise sales are involved, Snyder's going to fold fast.
Posted by GermanSausage on June 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM · Report this
31
@29, what amuses me about you Don Sterling types is that you choose to be openly racist, but then assume that nobody's going to notice if you just claim that you aren't.
Posted by GermanSausage on June 18, 2014 at 10:53 AM · Report this
blip 32
@19, Hey, take those victories when you can, bro. They're obviously few and far between if the unofficial name of a mountain in Yakima is that important to you.
Posted by blip on June 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 33
@13 and 29,

Is this guy too white for you? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/08/na…

Who are you to speak for American Indians?
Posted by keshmeshi on June 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM · Report this
mikethehammer 34
There's a running joke in & around DC that the name should be changed to the "Foreskins", ba dam bum.

That said, when it eventually and inevitably does change I think there's a growing consensus that the new name is obvious, highly marketable, and pays homage to the team's history and character: The Hogs.
Posted by mikethehammer on June 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM · Report this
35
The Washington Fighting Lobbyists!
Posted by supergp on June 18, 2014 at 11:16 AM · Report this
36
Re: "this doesn't stop them from using the name"

Yes it does. It's doesn't strictly, but the implications of them using a name they don't "own" make so little business sense that functionally it does. This is a multi-billion dollar property in the NFL (an economy to itself). If they lose their trademark, they change their name.
Posted by LukeJoe on June 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM · Report this
37
@36, that's the most amusing thing about it. They'll gladly defend racism because of "tradition" as long as it makes them money, but when they won't make any money they're quick to throw it in the trash where it belongs.
Posted by GermanSausage on June 18, 2014 at 11:23 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 38
@19: Waah! I want to keep using a name that many people find offensive, and they keep calling me a racist! Waah! Don't let the mean people call me nasty names just because I want to call other people nasty names! Waah!

Really, who is the crybaby here?
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on June 18, 2014 at 11:41 AM · Report this
venomlash 39
@19: For someone accusing others of whining, you seem to spend an awful lot of time melting down over people being allowed to get gay married.

Also, the federal government isn't forcing them to change the name. It's just saying basically "we're not going to spend taxpayer resources defending your ownership of this name, so you're on your own now". Who wants Uncle Sam to solve all their problems now?

Do you really think it's just about people's feelings being hurt? Let me tell you something.
A little ways north from where I live is the Village of Kenilworth, IL. It's a small North Shore suburb of about 2,500 people and relatively well-to-do. It's also extremely white: 97.4% Caucasian as of the 2010 Census. Now if my grandfather, as a hard-working young man, had come into some money and wanted to move there, he would not have been able to.
Why? Because he was and is a Jew. And until the Supreme Court of the United States struck down such arrangements in 1949, Kenilworth's citizens did not allow Jews (or blacks or Hispanics for that matter) to live there. How dare those activist judges give special rights to self-selecting minorities, right?
Well, allowing such discrimination breeds unhealthy attitudes. When a black family moved in in 1966, they were met with a burning cross on their lawn and other racist vandalism.
As someone who has admitted to illegally discriminating in housing matters, what do you think?
Posted by venomlash on June 18, 2014 at 11:44 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 40
@33: No one, which is why I allow them to speak for themselves instead of pointing to one person/minority group and declaring that they all must think that way, like you just did.

I do not tell minorities what they should not be offended by, and I do not tell them what they should be offended by. Surveys usually conclude that while some American Indians find the name offensive, most do not. I do not think it is a white person's perogative to declare that those who do not find the name offensive are wrong not to.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 18, 2014 at 11:46 AM · Report this
raku 41
67% of Native Americans say they find the slur offensive, if you ask Native people and not white people who call themselves "Indian". http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co…

Story about the Native woman who has been leading the fight against this for 30+ years: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-…

Context #1: https://31.media.tumblr.com/89c7bdc28198…

Context #2 (content warning): http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co…
Posted by raku on June 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM · Report this
42
@40: California State University, San Bernardino conducted a study on racial and ethnic perspectives and found that 67% of American Indians find the team name an offensive, disrespectful, and racist word for American Indian.

67% is not a minority. It's a landslide.
Posted by originalcinner on June 18, 2014 at 12:25 PM · Report this
43
@19 - Awww yes, the old "Sqauw Tit Hill" argument. You win!

Sometimes I think Seattle blues is just the Colbert of SLOG. or is it Raindrop? either way, comedy fucking gold every time.
Posted by longball on June 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM · Report this
44
@43

Isn't that cute? Liberals simply cannot get the point.

Redskins or the name of a hill- they're just names. They're not intended to insult. The only people they do insult are those perpetual victims that make up the Democrat or progressive base. Sad pathetic types unable to see that their own choices are the problem in their lives, not a lack of nanny government enabling their poor choices.

People with fulfilled lives aren't interested in finding pretenses for being sorry for themselves.
Posted by Seattleblues on June 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 45
@42:

This is the first I have heard about this new survey, and I will not dispute it, but Fenelon himself writes that since he was doing the interviews informally and face to face at an Indian Pow-Wow event, it likely skewed his results, which is why people typically do not conduct surveys that way.

I would like to see more of his methodology, as it represents an enormous shift, but all I can find is a press release with very raw charts.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 46
How about Washington Tomahawks?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on June 18, 2014 at 1:03 PM · Report this
47 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
48
@Subhumanblues. Don't you ever tire of whining, playing the victim and finding pretenses for feeling sorry for yourself?

How does any of this effect you, the ruling takes nothing from you. Even should the team changes it's name your still free to call them the Redskins. Hell should the ruling be upheld you'd be free to market T-shirts proclaiming it, something you can't do now.

Stop being such whiny little subhumanbaby.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on June 18, 2014 at 1:17 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 49
@44: "Redskins or the name of a hill- they're just names. They're not intended to insult."

Here is a simple question for you: If you met a Native American, would you call him or her a "redskin" to their face?

Yes or no? And if no, why not? After all, it's just a name.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on June 18, 2014 at 1:29 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 50
@45,

An enormous shift from what? Where's your data?
Posted by keshmeshi on June 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM · Report this
51 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
52
@49

No. And I wouldn't ever say 'nigger' to a black man either.

However I don't want to erase the word from Huck Finn. Partly, Twain is using the book and the language of his characters to make an anti racist statement. And partly the book, very few warts and a magnificent all, is what is is, and has been for many years.

Anybody capable of being offended by the name Redskins wants very badly to be offended. And I'm entirely uninterested in playing their childish game.
Posted by Seattleblues on June 18, 2014 at 1:59 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 53
@52: No one is suggesting erasing the name "Redskins" from the historical record. They are just suggesting that the team which currently bears that name change it, today, in recognition of the fact that what was acceptable eighty years ago is no longer so. Just as if a modern Mark Twain were to write a modern Huckleberry Finn, he would probably not be so free with the use of racial slurs which are no longer acceptable today.

As to wanting very badly to be offended, I offer you a mirror. You bend over backwards to take offense at all manner of things that do you no harm whatsoever.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on June 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 54
@50:

A 1992 Washington Post poll, a 2004 Annenberg survey, an AP poll in September of 2013, a July 2013 Washington Post survey, and another AP poll done in December of 2013.

I am sure more have been done If I really wanted to start digging, and I am sure you can find them all if you care to look.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 18, 2014 at 2:29 PM · Report this
Cascadian 55
The Beltway Bombers.
Posted by Cascadian on June 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM · Report this
seatackled 56
Seattleblues changed the terms of his argument. He claims he wouldn't call an Indian a redskin to his face, just as he wouldn't call a black person--well, a black man, anyway--the n-word to his face. But he also says redskin is just a word, not intended to insult, and anyone offended by the r-word is looking to be offended (perhaps the way some people who claim to be straight are looking to be offended when same-sex couples get to live in peace). So by his logic, "nigger" is not meant to be insulting and anyone offended by its usage is looking to be offended.

People, are you sure it's not Seattleblues who is the stupidest mother fucker on the planet?
Posted by seatackled on June 18, 2014 at 3:02 PM · Report this
Sandiai 57
@51

Your

reasonable and objectively applied regulatory grounds



have been carefully applied here.

When I first went to work at the Patent and Trademark Office, we were taught that we couldn't patent or trademark anything illegal or offensive, and we had a lot of training in what that meant. Trademarks (not so much patents, since their terms are limited) are evaluated periodically, since society's standards on what is offensive change over time. Third parties can also appeal to the "Board" (a panel of independent judges who decide whether a trademark or patent is valid under current laws and regulations) to have a patent or trademark invalidated. The Board acts like any other court in a circuit. It is not the "Federal government." And it's comprised of three patent attorneys who, believe me, don't have many friends at the patent office (eg, they're quite independent, often ruling against examiners).
Posted by Sandiai on June 18, 2014 at 3:20 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 58
@54,

Are you fucking serious? The Washington Post July 2013 survey was of people in the DC area, with no attention paid to their ethnicity.

If you're just going to fucking lie, then go the fuck away.
Posted by keshmeshi on June 18, 2014 at 3:27 PM · Report this
dnt trust me 59
@8

I love it
Posted by dnt trust me on June 18, 2014 at 4:07 PM · Report this
60
Just a Reminder to everyone--

>>May 20 - Seattleblues commented on Federal Judge Strikes Down Oregon's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage. "Sexual orientations and gender identity don't exist."

sexual orientations. . . don't exist. _DON'T EXIST_

seattleblueballs (for all of its morality/decency blustering,) said that we should be able to have sex with whoever we want regardless of gender or sexual orientation. if seattleblueballs was attracted to a man he would have no problem having sex with said man (or woman, guy dressed as a woman, etc.)

seattleblueballs is either deeply confused or a not very well organised troll (oh, we all now which. . . )
Posted by wontletyouforgetit on June 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM · Report this
venomlash 61
@47: "The homosexual lifestyle is entirely chosen."
There is abundant evidence demonstrating that sexual orientation is determined early in development and cannot be changed. (Due to your disregard for facts, you have many times claimed that sexual orientation is chosen or that it doesn't exist.) By your logic, the heterosexual lifestyle is entirely chosen as well. Tell me, Seattleblues, why did you choose to have sex with and marry (hopefully not in that order, since you're Such A Good Christian) a woman? Why did you make that choice exactly?

I expect you're right now formulating something along the lines of "because that's what natural law tells me to do because I'm a man and men are supposed to get it on with women". If so, stop lying to yourself. If you married a woman because you felt you were supposed to marry a woman because that's just what's done, then you're almost exactly like a closeted homosexual who marries a woman for the same reason, and she deserves better than you.
No, I hope for her sake that you married her because her visage is pleasing to you, because her voice strikes you to your soul, because you ache and burn for her presence alone. As Calvin Lewis and Andrew Wright wrote, "When a man loves a woman, he can't keep his mind on nothing else." That's love, to quote the subject of my profile picture, "medically speaking".
So tell me, Seattleblues, did you choose the heterosexual lifestyle? Or did it choose you?

@51: This is a trademark, not a patent. Different rules apply, as Sandiai explained.
@52: Would you name a professional football team the "Niggers"?
Posted by venomlash on June 18, 2014 at 5:35 PM · Report this
62
@61

Lifestyle, as opposed to inclinations.
Sure, I feel an aversion to homosexual behavior, as does the vast majority of people. I'll take the statements of those suffering from homosexual inclinations that they do so. And realizing that homosexual behavior hurts none but those engaged in it, I don't seek to regulate it. When such people seek to destroy marriage and family to make themselves feel better bout their choices is where I draw the line, not before.

And yes, the human body is designed or evolved or whatever you care to believe for sex between opposite genders. Call it natural law if you like. I call it blindingly obvious common sense all but perverts and deviants easily understand.

As to the Redskins, the point was they've been around a long time. Anyone still bothered is so thin skinned or such a professional victim that their opinions can quite safely be ignored.

I thank Sandai for the correction. As to whether the name is offensive, after such long benign usage and such a long association with a football team- well he and i disagree on that.

Posted by Seattleblues on June 18, 2014 at 6:10 PM · Report this
venomlash 63
@62: Racism and anti-Semitism have been around since there were people of different colors and Jews to discriminate against (circa 60,000 and 2,500 years before present respectively). It doesn't take the sting out of either of them. You have a lot of nerve telling other people that they're not allowed to take offense to racial slurs against THEIR NATION when you are not one of them.

You didn't answer the question.
Why did you choose the heterosexual lifestyle? Should your choice to do that be protected? If you lived in Boystown or some other extremely gay place, and nobody would rent to you because you engaged in the heterosexual lifestyle of sleeping with a woman, would that be okay? Or would you want something done about it?
If not, why? Shouldn't you be allowed to marry a woman without facing prejudice as a result?
If so, why should government go to all the trouble of protecting your lifestyle choice? It's chosen behavior, right? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right as a man to marry a woman; you're demanding that society go out of its way to accommodate your lifestyle choice and protect you from criticism!

As for your tired little feeble rationale as to why being gay is bad, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "NATURAL LAW". There is no intent behind evolution.
The gay lifestyle (of dating people of your own gender) isn't actually bad for anyone. Don't believe me? Evidence speaks louder than words like "pervert" and "deviant", which are just code for "they weird me out and I think they're icky".
You have yet to provide any evidence that allowing so-called "gay so-called 'marriage'" would in any way harm heterosexual marriage? Why is it bad? Because you said so, apparently! And of course you know best, because you told us that you were right and both the APA and the APA were wrong!
Face it, Seattleblues. There's no evidence supporting any of your opinions about The Gay; your entire argument rests solely on your revulsion to gay sex and your dogmatic conceit. The sooner you stop trying to convince yourself you're right about gays and just start ignoring gay issues, the happier you'll be.

You make a pitiful attempt to legitimize your opinions by calling them "common sense". NEWS FLASH, SEATTLEBLUES: just because it makes perfect sense to you doesn't mean it's actually true, correct, right, logical, or accurate. Sometimes your thinking is defective. Sometimes mine is too; that's the way humans are. But the difference between you and me is that you're so convinced of your own infallibility that you never question what you think. Have you ever entertained the possibility that you are wrong about things?
More...
Posted by venomlash on June 18, 2014 at 7:26 PM · Report this
very bad homo 64
@62 As a gay man about to legal marry a Comanche (thanks, WA voters!) I find everything you say stupidly offensive. You can have all the idiotic opinions you want to have, but you can't just make shit up and call it a fact.

Basically, what Venomlash just said.
Posted by very bad homo on June 18, 2014 at 7:59 PM · Report this
65
seattleblueballs: "And yes, the human body is designed or evolved or whatever you care to believe for sex between opposite genders"

The human body is EVOLVED for PROCREATIVE sex between opposite genders.

fixed it for you.
Posted by derive on June 18, 2014 at 9:48 PM · Report this
66
woops-

The human body is EVOLVED for PROCREATIVE sex between opposite SEXES (not genders.)

my bad, fixed for both of us :/

Posted by derive on June 18, 2014 at 10:16 PM · Report this
Lissa 67
@64: Congrats!
Posted by Lissa on June 18, 2014 at 11:07 PM · Report this
sperifera 68
Thank, Paul for re-posting PROUD TO BE. It is a powerful piece of film, and very moving. Sorry the bigots caused the comments to be turned off on that Post, I wanted to leave thanks somewhere.
Posted by sperifera on June 18, 2014 at 11:29 PM · Report this
69
A wise owner and league would have invited the 562 federally recognized indigenous nations in the United States to form a council to create a new name for the team that honors and represents them well.

It would have been and still could be the right, just and smart way forward.
Posted by Washington Swamp Monsters on June 19, 2014 at 1:10 AM · Report this
70
@47

Your ass must be bloody raw from riding that fence for and against socialism, big government and special rights as it conveniently suits you.

First, to the intelligent and learned people, which we accept you do not claim or give evidence of being, sexual orientation is not a choice.

Second, the visibility of one's identity is not a prerequisite for protection from discrimination and violence. You don't have to tattoo a cross on your forehead for your Christianity to be protected from discrimination.

But, let's accept your ignorance as truth for sake of argument.

Religion by definition of its adherents is a CHOICE.

So, if you're against the government carving out special rights and protections for individual's choices, you've got a gaping hole of irrationality and/or hypocrisy in defending big government protections of one group's choice, but not another's.

You've managed to shove your head so far up your own ass in the service of your mindless argument that your reality is shit coming and going.

Take a laxative. If you survive the massive purge, you should come back and try having an original thought.
Posted by Can You Hear Me In There on June 19, 2014 at 1:43 AM · Report this
71
@68 I agree, thanks Paul good vid worth a repeat. I'd rather not imagine what the posts were that caused Slog to shut down the comments. After all I've read Subhumanblues's posts here.

Speaking of Subhumanblues. Subbaby when was the last time your family actually let you out of the basement?

I get that they don't really talk to you but they must let wander in a circle on a leash in the backyard once and a while.

Posted by Machiavelli was framed on June 19, 2014 at 1:48 AM · Report this
72
@62

The male prostate is located approximately 2-3 inches inside the anus just on the other side of the forward wall.

When stimulated by gentle pressure (in and out, up and down, side to side or round and round), it produces the most mind-blowing singular and multiple orgasms that a man can have.

So, why do you think males evolved to have their prostate there in a place that just happens to be perfectly within the reach of the average adult's finger or penis and with such an amazing reward?

It sure the fuck isn't for making babies.

Apparently, you missed a few chapters or, perhaps, the whole damned library about the birds, bees and bonobos.

Put that middle finger to better use, and you might not be so blue.
Posted by Remedial Sex Ed on June 19, 2014 at 2:25 AM · Report this
Laurence Ballard 73
To non-empathetics like Seattleblues (who wouldn't use the word "redskin" to my face--I'm Yup'ik/Swedish and close enough for this discussion) perhaps a Tohono O'odham high school football team on the Rez could call themselves the Crackerheads, just to make the point a bit clearer for these folks.
Posted by Laurence Ballard http://laurenceballard.com on June 19, 2014 at 4:56 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 74
@58: Fine, then ignore that one. Have anything to say about the other four? No need to get hysterical and combative.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 19, 2014 at 5:33 AM · Report this
venomlash 75
@73: Seattleblues won't know what you're talking about unless you call them "Papago" instead.
Posted by venomlash on June 19, 2014 at 12:49 PM · Report this
76
sure change the name but the outrage meters are faulty when we -- this means you, and you, and you, and you and you and all of us in the 50 states -- deny voting rights and legal equality to DC residents. mainly people of color. because, well, you know, because.

same for puerto rico. and a few other places.

this denial of rights -- denial of democracy, and equality, and liberty -- this colonialism -- is something that is about one million times more harmful than a racist team name in a day when really, it's the only usage of that R word. a native american here in washington state in other words has MORE RIGHTS to make law over DC than DC residents have because the person in washington state can vote for reps making federal laws when DC residents cannot. many of us know this, but really, we don't CARE. at the same time NOT ONE COMMENTER here wants to really "do right" to native americans and give back the land. riiiiiiight? so at some level this outrage if coming from whites is kind of moral gelt. now, go to redskins.com and what do you see? a team called the minnesota vikings. with a fierce depiction of a white guy's face, he looks really angry. is this demeaning to vikings? nope, it's honoring them for their might and such. do the scandinavians care? apparently not, they're all over fucking minnesota. in this case is it okay because the group affected is there, the team is sort of theirs, so they can use that name and we in ....alabama...can't? maybe seattle could, being so nordic? well how about the victims of the vikings, they raped, enslaved and tortured all over. why ins't that offensive name? well it could be I guess if people decided to be offended. we also say white people and black people and not usually to their face, so would we have a team called the whiteskins? would that be offensive? what if honoring their incredibly strong, indeed, brutal strength, they conquered lots of the world right? well it would not e demeaning to them but it's not something we want in a team name. but does this mean we should stop saying the word "whites"? you can debate all this word offensing stuff all day long and in the end it's nothing as serious as denying someone land, they owned, or a job, or voting rights, riiiiight? so here we are a buncha white people not giving native americans back their land, because you know, we took it and want to keep it, but we stand up for them on this name racism thing, since that's so easy to do! (we will pay a tiny amount against racism, but not hte large amount we actually owe for taking the entire continent!) and meanwhile we happily continue to deny people of color full voting rights in Dc and puerto rico .....because...well, because we don't care, don't really believe in legal equal rights for other people. we only care about ourselves, mainly, or we care about others if it's cheap to do so.

there. chnage the name but dammit, give DC and puerto rico voting rights -- that's a real serious violation and the lack of caring is stunning.
More...
Posted by trade in 'skins jackets for voting rights? on June 20, 2014 at 8:02 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy