Washington Redskins are changing their name and logo

I think you're missing my point. They can't be a part of the mob if they don't care: 100% impossible. It'd be like if I was walking down the street, a protest starts, and the only way for me to get to the other side is protest with them. As soon as I'm on the other side of the street I am on my merry way just doing my thing. Ya gotta walk with the mob to be a part of the mob.

FedEx owns the street, so they can do whatever they want. In this case they are saying nah we will just sell the street.

Y'all just taking the SJW and doing a 180 with this "MOB MOB MOB" talk. So like, if you're bitching about the mob and just saying the opposite. How are ya'll any different? Ya ain't.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I was just reading a list of potential new names for the team. Seems Washington Warriors is in the lead. I liked Washington Redhawks. Has a nicer ring to it and the red hawk is a real bird and would make a cool symbol for the team.

I quite like Washington Wascals but apparently it's not getting a lot of traction

I have to agree with that. This time it's not liberals or anarchist, it's rich wall street types, who are the executive at Fedex calling for the name change.

Indeed.

"Frederick Smith, the founder, chairman and CEO of FedEx, is a part owner of the Redskins. He, Robert Rothman, and Dwight Schar collectively own 40 percent of the team, the Post reported."

Three old white dudes a mob does not make @cricket

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ch-sell-stakes

When it gets to the point that people start crying foul and blaming SJWs after private investors make private decisions about private money. That's when you know an agenda is in full swing.

Follow the money. Think. Don't mob the mob.

Yeah, that's what I keep harping on. Imagine:

1) A thing should be done, but isn't.
2) A "mob" forms to say it should be done.

Suddenly the thing shouldn't be done? Seems ethically incoherent, unless you think the "mob" will be so emboldened by this perceived victory that they will achieve other victories they otherwise would not have, which is a bit of a stretch. It would also make the position not "the mob is wrong" but "the mob is right but it's the lesser of two evils to resist them, long-term."

Also note how you have to thread the needle to take this position: you'd have to be saying that there's some magical line between this exact issue and the "next" one where we CAN resist the mob before it, but not after. That's an awful lot of guesswork and speculation to avoid doing something you otherwise would have agreed with.

Also reflect on the fact that the thing did not happen until the mob took up arms, which has to make you wonder whether some things won't happen otherwise.

All deliberately missing the point, which is that none of those things are understood as a slur by, well, anyone.

All these memes will make sense to mock people who say we should change "Chiefs" or "Braves" perhaps--something where people are opposed to the idea of merely referencing a group, even neutrally--but they're total non-sequiturs in response to changing "Redskins."

I remember there once was a mob that cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war. They strong armed their oppressors and stamped out all resistance to their cause. Their demands were outrageous: no taxation without representation.

I mob. Do you?

If the majority of Native American Indians aren't offended by it then the only reason I could think they would do this now would be to boost merchandise sales, and it would tremendously. This I would understand.


Hm. I guess I'm not as annoyed now lol! Actually I feel better because the majority of Indians aren't offended, it gives me hope we aren't all just a bunch of whiny pusses.

I don't think it should be like a majority vote. If almost half of an entire racial group are offended by a word, that makes it pretty clear it's really insensitive, at minimum.

It's really just about whether a reasonable person might reasonably be offended by it. I think it easily clears that bar.

Whenever has the majority ever had to be a prerequisite to pass social reforms or anything related to it?
Whenever has a mob ever not been been involved? Change, for the better, seldom happens alone. One individual may spark it, but without the support of said mob, it’s just a spark.

Yoda, could you add a poll to this thread asking: should the Redskins name be changed or not? It would be real interesting to see the results.

Their name should be changed, but it shouldn't be changed now because people outside the league want it changed. The owner seems like a loser and probably was never going to change it, but the NFL could have and should have stepped in when everything was quiet in the country and said this isn't right. Or if Native Americans made something of it. This is none of that. It's only happening because of everything going on, with the mobs saying we want this changed. And mobs don't always care obviously and you see that with black businesses getting looted and burned down. By the way, I like the Washington Natives. It sounds like a tribute to me.

But they didn't care before, not until a mob of 80 investors petitioned them.

The mob is not wrong in this particular case of course. It just shouldn't be the reason change is made.

Well, it’s good then that that’s not the case here. It’s just about the money.

They didn’t care before but they made money, so it didn’t matter. Now that they stand to lose money it matters. But only because they will lose money.

I fail to see why this isn’t plain as day. Owning a racially insensitive brand is a bad investment. When you own a bad investment you either sell it or ride it down into the ground, and the three owners I referred to were looking to sell before all the letters and the press. This is why they are rich old white dudes.

Are you saying you’d ride the investment to zero? If so, give me some stocks you’d invest in and I’ll stay clear.

See? TONGO gets the angle. Name change and a bad investment becomes a magical unicorn. A merchandising fart machine that smells like money.

I would agree if Dan Snyder did this on his own in order to profit but that's not what's happening. He is being forced to do it and money is being used as a weapon against him. It's a huge difference. In fact money is probably a big reason why he has resisted it with how much is invested into the team name. I don't believe that this is how democracy is supposed to work. I have the right to be offended, and I don't have the right to force my will on somebody else. Somewhere in California there's a white woman who doesn't know anything about football screaming that they need to change the name because it's insensitive. She can f**k off and get therapy. Yoda makes an interesting point about resisting doing the right thing because the mob demands it, but I'm not sure how often that would apply. Clearly the owner doesn't think it's the right thing to do. Many of us disagree and that's fine. If you think this is all ok just don't complain when it goes in a way that you don't like.

Yup, you obviously have an agenda.

But hey, it’s America. You can get upset about a nonexistent mob.

More power to ya!

80 investors are a mob.

You want a good example of a mob? A kindergarten class that has been denied juice boxes and nap time. That's a mob.

You either don't understand what is going on here or you haven't read up enough on the timeline of events. Either way it's America. You're free to believe the wrong thing.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, the Washington Redskins has a long tradition of asshatery. I mean, their founding owner was a racist twat that had to be strong armed by the US government to hire black players. Are you upset about that, too?

You seem awfully concerned with how private citizens spend their private money. That does't mesh with the political angles you tend to push, so I don't get why you're making a mole out of an anthill.