Senator threatens NFL's tax-exempt status over the Redskins name

[Valmy]

Yeah I didn't think he was official or anything. Unless he is putting on red facepaint I don't get the blackface link either.

[The Brain]

"Brave" is in the national anthem, so it has to be racist.

[Tonitrus]

Redskins = slur
Indians = meh (though their logo is far worse than the above)
Braves/Chiefs = shouldn't really be any more offensive than the Vikings

[The Brain]

I yell "Native American persyn!" when I jump into combat.

[Tonitrus]

I figured Swedes would yell something like "bork bork bork".

[Syt]

I figured Swedes would yell something like "bork bork bork".

It's something else:

[Admiral Yi]

Redskins = slur

I've never heard anyone use it as a slur or read about anyone using it as a slur.  The current attitude that it's a slur seems to me to be largely based on opposition to the team name.

AFAICT it derives from the French peaux-rouges, which again AFAICT was/is a non-pejorative term.  Just a neutral descriptor.

Now if the team was called the Washington Prairie Niggers, then I would have to agree.

[Tonitrus]

Ok.  But for me personally, I consider it a slur, as I would never think of using the term "blackskins, whiteskins, etc".  Even though those are made-up, never-used "slurs", they don't evoke any logical function but to bait an argument.

And my point was more meant to say that I would accept the views of those who see "redskin" as a slur, but think those who would argue that "braves" or "chiefs" are slurs are getting a bit silly.

And I also see that while many are offended by the redskins term, there are many of indigenous heritage who are not.  But there is also nothing to really lose (outside of the costs to adjust the affected brand) by capitulating on this issue.

[Admiral Yi]

The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.

[crazy canuck]

The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.

When has there ever been a consensus that a particular term is improper?  Doesn't that bind social discourse to the lowest common denominator?

[garbon]

The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.

When has there ever been a consensus that a particular term is improper?  Doesn't that bind social discourse to the lowest common denominator?

I'd say that there is pretty broad consensus that the n-word is improper and more and more agreement that one shouldn't use faggot.

[Liep]

I figured Swedes would yell something like "bork bork bork".

It's something else:

That's from Denmark though.

[crazy canuck]

The issue that's on the line is whether an alleged insult is always an insult, or whether that determination is arrived at through consensus.

When has there ever been a consensus that a particular term is improper?  Doesn't that bind social discourse to the lowest common denominator?

I'd say that there is pretty broad consensus that the n-word is improper and more and more agreement that one shouldn't use faggot.

Put another way, if everyone agrees through consensus that a term is improper then there is no action which is required.  Action is only required when there is a stubborn group who wish to continue to use an offensive term.

[Admiral Yi]

The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.

[crazy canuck]

The best (only?) example I can think of of failure to ban "insulting" language is black and African American.

Sure but it wasn't done on the basis of consensus as you suggest the test should be this time around.