jsneb83 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Does this mean Sioux City has to find a new name. People from around the area call it Sewer City anyway. Quote Link to comment
Lonnie Utah Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Not being a Native American, I can't really say if they are or aren't. I have to defer to those groups and if they are offended, then they are. So, I didn't vote, but I'm inclined to agree with knapplc. That being said, my two favorite pro teams are the Braves and the Redskins... :/ Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It's like that guy who got offended by kchusker_chris' avatar. It was within board rules and 99% of the posters here didn't seem to have a problem with it, but since one guy gets offended by it we have to kowtow to that one guy when he could have simply blocked chris and not made a big stink about something trivial. It's literally nonsense. It is nonsense. Another example is when the Woodshed lost nudity privileges. This was my post in that thread. For starters, I don't really care if this is the new rule. I rarely go to the Woodshed to begin with. That said, I don't agree with the premise originally stated in the OP and in subsequent posts. I'm reading that the Woodshed was intended as a place for heated discussions to go and not for nude women. I'm not disputing this, however. What I am concerned about is the fact that you need to ask an admin for the password to gain access into the Woodshed, ergo you should be well aware of what you're getting yourself into. If you're looking at the Woodshed and don't see something you like, that's your own fault. You chose to access this portion of the forum and it is not open to the average viewer on this website unless they have a password. If you have a reason to complain about the Woodshed then you shouldn't be going there in the first place. Therefore, if you're going to cut out nudity, you need to just cut out EVERYTHING that is not related to heated discussions. If this was the original intent, then there is no need for anything else, right? Again, I have no problem with this implementation and am not opposed to it. I am, however, against the reasoning behind it. It appears like unnecessary censorship. If you're going to give the password out then you should also make sure people know exactly what the Woodshed is for. Otherwise, there is no justification for watering it down when you could have prevented the complaints in the first place from educating people. It's a similar situation, imho. If a minority dislikes something, then don't view it. I have to get on here every day and read stupid, unreasonable opinions. But I'm not going up to a mod telling them to ban these derps. Jokes aside, I'm a strong opponent of political correctness. That's not to say I don't find things offensive, however. There are things that do upset and offend me (i.e. SOPA). For the most part, however, I'm very laid back and I just don't care about many things. Obviously, some people do, but as to why they care, I'm baffled. Each to their own, though. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Woo hoo....... http://www.uscho.com/2012/02/09/north-dakota-to-resume-use-of-fighting-sioux-nickname/ Quote Link to comment
NUance Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yes, Notre Dame is clearly poking fun of the Irish with this racist and demeaning mascot. And Nebraska is clearly poking fun of farmers with this demeaning bumpkin mascot. My point: Just because a mascot is humorously cartoonish doesn't necessarily mean the school--or professional baseball team--intends to demean a group of people with its mascot. . Quote Link to comment
Hoosker Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (I'm white) Growing up, I always thought the teams that had native americans as mascots were kind of cool. It made them seem special if a school/organization decided to name their team after a group of people. A prime example is Florida State. I think you'd be hard pressed to find another school in the country with a cooler tradition than Chief Osceola on that spotted horse planting that flaming spear into the field. Racist or badass? I vote badass. Quote Link to comment
holvy83 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Saw an article about the Atlanta Braves came out with some retro uniforms but the brave on the sleeve was missing since it was insensitve to native americans, but it was replaced by the tomahawks that were used for scalping, killing etc... Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Doesn't fsu pay the Seminoles or something? I thought there was some sort of deal. Quote Link to comment
Hoosker Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Doesn't fsu pay the Seminoles or something? I thought there was some sort of deal. I'm not sure. I was under the impression that their was a mutual respect between the two. Quote Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Change the name to fighting Seminoles and see what happens. Quote Link to comment
beanman Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Change the name to fighting Seminoles and see what happens. Change the name to the Semenholes. This guy could be their mascot. 1 Quote Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Change the name to fighting Seminoles and see what happens. Change the name to the Semenholes. Imagine if South Carolina was playing them. "And the c$%ks are ripping the Semenholes apart." 1 Quote Link to comment
beanman Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Change the name to fighting Seminoles and see what happens. Change the name to the Semenholes. Imagine if South Carolina was playing them. "And the c$%ks are ripping the Semenholes apart." That would make for good television. Quote Link to comment
Husker John Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It's not for the general public to determine what is or is not offensive to a particular person or group. It's up to them, and if they're offended, they have a right to make their point. I agree with walksalone that a lot of this is manufactured activism, and in a less politically-correct time this likely wouldn't be (and wasn't, for a long time) an issue. But if someone is offended, we cannot tell them, "You shouldn't be offended." It's up to them. And then it's up to a judge (if it gets that far) to make the call. EDIT - I'm the (currently) lone "Yes" vote up there. I don't wholly agree with the phrasing of the Yes vote option, but in the context of the above paragraph in this post, it is "racist" or "demeaning" if someone says it is. What is "demeaning" is in the eye of the beholder, much like what defines a religion is in a person's heart/head. A religion is simply a deeply held belief, meaning that if I truly, deeply, really feel that my water cup sitting on my desk is my deity, the government cannot tell me it is not, and they cannot dictate to me how I am to worship it (within certain guidelines, of course). In much the same way, the government cannot tell me, a free citizen, that I am not allowed to be offended by something. If someone else is not offended that's OK, but it doesn't negate my offense. Well stated......posting a link from Indian Country Today regarding the Fighting Sioux mascot......as a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, I personally don't have a problem with it, but other Lakota people may, and I do respect their opinions....anyway here's the link and the A-holes that don't respect other races or cultures.... http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/02/22/racist-chants-hurled-during-fighting-sioux-hockey-game-99323 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.