Bye Bye Chief Wahoo

[Redbull3]

i say again. Are you actually claiming that the reason for the name was to mock native americans? Are you actually saying thats why they named the team redskins?

You're shoving an awful lot in my mouth. All I did was ask if the benefits of keeping the name (what are those again) is worth offending 9% of the native american population.

[Redbull3]

How about if a team called themselves the Ni**** because supposedly slaves were strong?

If it is good for the goose its good for the gander. Saying that one person can use a word but another cannot is BS.

He'd have to be ok with it, because African Americans use the term amongst themselves.

[noturbizniss]

Did you read what it says there to define whataboutism? Because it has nothing to do with my analogy.

The two of you are speaking two different things. He is saying that the term is a slur. You are answering that they used it to convey a certain supposedly complimentary message. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

1. "Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,["
That is exactly what you are doing. You are saying well what about if a team used a different word. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current argument.
2. he is saying that the name was not used as a compliment. He is apparently saying it was used solely to be derogatory, to which i say, he needs to stop listening to alex jones to much.

You're all alone with this take. No one else in the world thinks the term "redskins" is some kind of compliment. Come on.

He'd have to be ok with it, because African Americans use the term amongst themselves.

you want to discuss this as as a seperate issue then that is fine. but you have not yet answered my question.
And for the record it's a free country. if someone wants to use that then go ahead. see how far it gets them.

[Redbull3]

He is apparently saying it was used solely to be derogatory

Source? I argued impact not intent.

[Redbull3]

And for the record it's a free country. if someone wants to use that then go ahead. see how far it gets them.

I respect you more for saying this. Not that I agree but glad you're consistent.

[aygart]

1. "Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,["
That is exactly what you are doing. You are saying well what about if a team used a different word. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current argument.

Then you totally missed the boat on what I wrote EVEN THOUGH I SPELLED IT OUT CLEARLY. It was an analogy to directly illustrate why your argument is untrue without any connotation of hypocrisy at all.

Whether or not the purpose in its use was to be complimentary does not change whether or not it is a slur. He had just quoted from Wikipedia that redskin is an offensive term. You replied that it was used to convey a complimentary message. My point was that your reply was irrelevant to that argument since using a slur to convey a complimentary message does not change that it is a slur just like in my example where a slur being used to convey a complimentary message is still offensive.

[Redbull3]

Indians were named Indians for the same reason, to honor one of their Native American players...

Had no idea. Found this very interesting too:

The city of Boston, was awarded an NFL franchise on July 9, 1932,[7] under the ownership of George Preston Marshall, Vincent Bendix, Jay O'Brien, and Dorland Doyle.[7] The team took the place of the temporary traveling Cleveland Indians, who themselves were operated under the franchise of the Newark Tornadoes[8] after the Tornadoes had left the league after the 1930 season and had sold its franchise rights back to the NFL. Despite this, neither the NFL nor the Indians claim the history of the Indians and Tornadoes as their own. Additionally, none of the members of the 1930 Newark Tornadoes roster,[9] and only two of the 1931 Indians (Algy Clark and Dale Waters),[10] remained by the 1932 Boston Braves roster.[11]

Initially, the new team took the same name as their landlords, the Boston Braves, one of the two local baseball teams at the time. The Braves played their first game on October 2, 1932, under the leadership of coach Lud Wray, against the Brooklyn Dodgers, to whom they lost 14–0.[12] The next week, the Braves recorded their first win, beating the New York Giants, 14–6.[13] Despite the presence of two rookies; halfback Cliff Battles and tackle Glen "Turk" Edwards — the new franchise's losses during the first season reached $46,000 and Bendix, O'Brien, and Doyle dropped out of the investment, leaving Marshall the sole owner of the Braves.[14][15] The team moved to Fenway Park[16] (home of the Boston Red Sox) the next year, and Marshall changed the name to the "Redskins". A 1933 news article quotes Marshall as saying that he did not name the team specifically in honor of Dietz or any of the team's native members, but because Marshall wanted to avoid any confusion with the Braves baseball squad while still keeping the native connotations of the previous moniker (unlike "Indians", used by another baseball team, no professional sports team at the time was using the name "Redskins").[17]

[noturbizniss]

Then you totally missed the boat on what I wrote EVEN THOUGH I SPELLED IT OUT CLEARLY. It was an analogy to directly illustrate why your argument is untrue without any connotation of hypocrisy at all.

Here, let me rephrase your question so you can understand why it is EXACTLY whataboutism

How about if a team called themselves the Ni**** because supposedly slaves were strong?

What aboutif a team called themselves the Ni**** because supposedly slaves were strong?
quote author=aygart link=topic=90431.msg1882279#msg1882279 date=1517335685]
Whether or not the purpose in its use was to be complimentary does not change whether or not it is a slur. He had just quoted from Wikipedia that redskin is an offensive term. You replied that it was used to convey a complimentary message. My point was that your reply was irrelevant to that argument since using a slur to convey a complimentary message does not change that it is a slur just like in my example where a slur being used to convey a complimentary message is still offensive.

[/quote] My reply is that it is completely relevant. Expecially since all of a sudden everyone decided 5 years ago to take offense. When the name was created no one gave to s**ts. Now everyone is all pc and retrocactively decides to be offended. Its utter BS.

[aygart]

Here, let me rephrase your question so you can understand why it is EXACTLY whataboutismWhat aboutif a team called themselves the Ni**** because supposedly slaves were strong?
quote author=aygart link=topic=90431.msg1882279#msg1882279 date=1517335685]
Whether or not the purpose in its use was to be complimentary does not change whether or not it is a slur. He had just quoted from Wikipedia that redskin is an offensive term. You replied that it was used to convey a complimentary message. My point was that your reply was irrelevant to that argument since using a slur to convey a complimentary message does not change that it is a slur just like in my example where a slur being used to convey a complimentary message is still offensive.

 My reply is that it is completely relevant. Expecially since all of a sudden everyone decided 5 years ago to take offense. When the name was created no one gave to s**ts. Now everyone is all pc and retrocactively decides to be offended. Its utter BS.

Because it can use the words what about? Really? I did not think of you as being shallow like that.

[Dan]

Why is it ok to offend even 9% of native americans for something as stupid as a team name? Serious question.

The team name and logo are highly sentimental in CLE.
I'll direct you to the comments on this article where people are taking it the same as they did when the Browns left and when UA dehubbed CLE:
http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2018/01/cleveland_indians_chief_wahoo_1.html#incart_m-rpt-1

[noturbizniss]

Because it can use the words what about? Really? I did not think of you as being shallow like that.

An analogy does not make your argument. Saying that thing A is bad because Thing B is bad and you clealry agree thing b is bad so therefore thing a is bad is an invalide argument.
 
Argue the merits of your point, do not say it is because a similar thing is bad.

[skyguy918]

My reply is that it is completely relevant. Expecially since all of a sudden everyone decided 5 years ago to take offense. When the name was created no one gave to s**ts. Now everyone is all pc and retrocactively decides to be offended. Its utter BS.

Language is not static. Society can evolve its usage and connotation of any given word. Whether or not society has truly decided these terms are offensive/derogatory/unacceptable can be argued. But whether or not these words had different meanings/usages/connotations when they were first applied to sports teams is not relevant to that discussion.

[noturbizniss]

Language is not static. Society can evolve its usage and connotation of any given word. Whether or not society has truly decided these terms are offensive/derogatory/unacceptable can be argued. But whether or not these words had different meanings/usages/connotations when they were first applied to sports teams is not relevant to that discussion.

but thats exactly what we are arguing. I am saying that when the team name was chosen it was to provoke thoughs and impressions of strength and power. @Redbull3 is claiming it was not, and that it was apparently chosen to disparage. Which again, i find to be in the realm of conspiracy theory.

[noturbizniss]

Occams Razor says that it is simpler to assume that the name was chosen for prowess (in concert with many other similar names (indians, blackhawks, braves, reds, etc.)) then that there was a cabal of team owners out to secretly "get" the native Americans.

[skyguy918]

but thats exactly what we are arguing. I am saying that when the team name was chosen it was to provoke thoughs and impressions of strength and power. @Redbull3 is claiming it was not, and that it was apparently chosen to disparage. Which again, i find to be in the realm of conspiracy theory.

I suggest you go back and read both your comments and his.

[noturbizniss]

I suggest you go back and read both your comments and his.

perhaps you should. Start from here.

If you think the name was made simply. Because e it's an insult to native Americans, I have a bridge to well you that was actually constructed by aliens.

And for the record i asked at least 3 times for his opinion on what exactly the reasoning behind the name was and he never answered. Hell, he never denied my assumption that he assumes there was a vast conspiracy to disparage native americans via sport team names.

[skyguy918]

perhaps you should. Start from here.And for the record i asked at least 3 times for his opinion on what exactly the reasoning behind the name was and he never answered. Hell, he never denied my assumption that he assumes there was a vast conspiracy to disparage native americans via sport team names.

Yes, I'm aware that you've been fixated on the irrelevant part of the discussion.

[noturbizniss]

Yes, I'm aware that you've been fixated on the irrelevant part of the discussion.

why is it irrelevant? Becuase it doesn't involve what you deem important? I want to know the warped thinking that goes to concluding that the name was chosen to be racist.

Language is not static. Society can evolve its usage and connotation of any given word. Whether or not society has truly decided these terms are offensive/derogatory/unacceptable can be argued. But whether or not these words had different meanings/usages/connotations when they were first applied to sports teams is not relevant to that discussion.

This is a seperate argument, which redbull3 did not make.  In fact, i don't see you necessarily arguing with my point on the original reason for the naming (albeit irrelvant)

[aygart]

Yes, I'm aware that you've been fixated on the irrelevant part of the discussion.

Such as fixating on the use of an analogy.

[mmgfarb]

This thread makes me proud to be a DDFer. 6 pages and not a single halchic argument! I'm speechless.