Washington Redskin's New Name?

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Econoline »

I agree. At some point in the future (who knows when?) anything "red"—or "brown" or "yellow" or "black" or "white"—or anything that might possibly be construed as ethnic or racial might become unacceptable. Best to stick with animals or mythical beasts or abstract nouns. Anyone who is alive now who thinks they can predict what will be considered "offensive" a generation from now is probably wrong.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9820
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Living in a suburb of Berkeley on the Prairie along with my Yellow Rose of Texas

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Geometric shapes and colors.  The Pittsburgh Polygons, anyone?
But whatever your do, make sure those triangles aren't pink, and the stars are five-pointed (not six) and not inverted.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Gob »

How about "The Fore Skins"?

Leading from the front...
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

liberty
Posts: 4992
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by liberty »

Econoline wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:53 am
I agree. At some point in the future (who knows when?) anything "red"—or "brown" or "yellow" or "black" or "white"—or anything that might possibly be construed as ethnic or racial might become unacceptable. Best to stick with animals or mythical beasts or abstract nouns. Anyone who is alive now who thinks they can predict what will be considered "offensive" a generation from now is probably wrong.
I can’t predict tomorrow with any degree of accuracy. All I can do is look into the past and project into the future and there is no assurance that will work out. But, I do think it is stupid not to try to avoid trouble in the future. That is something that Americans are generally not good at; I once heard it said Americans are reactive people, not proactive people. Agree with that and someday that way of thinking will get us.
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Econoline »

Gob wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:00 am
How about "The Fore Skins"?

Leading from the front...
Nope. Might be construed as anti-Semitic. :mrgreen:
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Big RR
Posts: 14932
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Big RR »

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Gob »

Econo wins the internet! :lol: :lol: :lol:
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20156
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by BoSoxGal »

The Washington NFL franchise, formerly known as the Washington Redskins, is officially going to change its name to the Washington Football Team.

The new team name is effective immediately, and it will remain in place "pending adoption of a new team name," the team announced in a statement on Thursday.
Is Snyder taking the piss?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

I came here to post exactly that. I wonder how much they spent on PR guys and image consultants and branding engineers to come up with that.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15468
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Joe Guy »

They should call it the Washington Team Football or WTF for short.

liberty
Posts: 4992
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by liberty »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:18 pm
The Washington NFL franchise, formerly known as the Washington Redskins, is officially going to change its name to the Washington Football Team.

The new team name is effective immediately, and it will remain in place "pending adoption of a new team name," the team announced in a statement on Thursday.
Is Snyder taking the piss?
That is some what safe; it is hard to see how something derogator can be made out of that unless George Washington is the mascot. Washington was a slave owner; but, he gave us everything we have. We wouldn’t have a free world today if not for Washington; the left hates him because he was a slave owner. The left has no gratitude or understanding of history. I wouldn’t be surprised if before long they start calling for the destruction of the Washington Monument and the abolishment of the US Constitution.
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21498
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

I think the NFL should sue them for appropriation of the word "football"
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Econoline »

Meade - I would've expected you in particular to suggest that FIFA (rather than the NFL) should sue?
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Gob »

I think they're taking a big risk using "Washington".
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Big RR
Posts: 14932
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Big RR »

Who is this left of which you speak? Recognizing people as complex individuals and deciding not to honor them because of some beliefs is notthe same as hatred.

And FWIW, I would think Jefferson and the subsequent Democrat republicans are responsible for a lot of what we have (the Bill of Rights, e.g.); not to minimize the contributions of Washington and the Federalists, but they clearly did not "give" us everything (indeed, we have gotten a lot of what we have over the years form a combination of administrations, Congresses, court action, and individual citizen action).

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21498
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Econoline wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:05 am
Meade - I would've expected you in particular to suggest that FIFA (rather than the NFL) should sue?
I thought of it but decided that what the Washington Wahoos did last year was even less like American football
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14932
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Big RR »

I don't think FIFA has any sort of monopoly on the term "football" which, I understand, predates soccer and originally referred to any sport which was played on foot (i.e. not on horseback) and can refer to any number of games. While you are right, it is difficilt to call the the game Washington plays as American (or NFL) football, but it is played on foot (or often on their backs or stomachs). :lol:

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Big RR wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:00 pm
I don't think FIFA has any sort of monopoly on the term "football" which, I understand, predates soccer and originally referred to any sport which was played on foot (i.e. not on horseback) and can refer to any number of games.
So tennis = football. Got it.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15468
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by Joe Guy »

and ping pong...😁

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21498
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Washington Redskin's New Name?

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Fetch my golf bats
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply