Redskins will "never" change name

[JJ Husker]

Being upset over racial (or any) "insensitivities" only when it is convenient for you is one of the tackiest traits one can possess.

I think I see what you are saying. Another example would be when Catholic want to change the law so they can legally refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple, all in the name of 'religious freedom' while at the same time they object to any changes in the law that would allow the gay couple of have the freedom to get married and enjoy all to legal and religious benefits that come from marriage.

 

Truely, as you say, the tackiest trait.

 

Also, note that your black friends don't object to you assigning a positive trait to their race. How would they feel if you suggested that their race is responsibile for their advanced skills in the field of lethargy?

 

*thought for sure this would be a topic that didn't attract comments about gays and the Catholic church*

 

Guess I was wrong

[walksalone]

b) I'm tired of some of my fellow Native Americans "convenient activism" when it comes to things like this. If you'd have been vocal about the anger 40 or 50 years ago, then I understand

 

What if I'm a 25 year old Native American? I wasn't around 40 or 50 years ago to be vocal about it.

 

Then fine, be vocal about it, but what if those around you weren't vocal about?

 

Better question, are you even Native American, and if not why would you care?

[deedsker]

There is no good way to talk about racial slurs unless your the one being harmed. I don't pretend to know how a Native American would feel, but coming from an area where ever town is named after a Native American culture and some Native American reservations I don't know how this looks for their society. I see it a tribute to their society before USA got involved, but it is not my offense to relate to. Let them voice how they feel.

[Someone]

Guess I was wrong

Guess so.

[StPaulHusker]

Guess I was wrong

Guess so.

Cool how you edit peoples comments.

[Someone]

Guess I was wrong

Guess so.

Cool how you edit peoples comments.

Is that not what he said?

 

 

Here is the whole post: "*thought for sure this would be a topic that didn't attract comments about gays and the Catholic church*

 

Guess I was wrong "

 

Discrimination comparisions made by me seemed to fit given the comments by Creighton Duke. Surely the catholic connection didn't go over anyone's head.

[walksalone]

Guess I was wrong

Guess so.

Cool how you edit peoples comments.

Is that not what he said?

 

 

Here is the whole post: "*thought for sure this would be a topic that didn't attract comments about gays and the Catholic church*

 

Guess I was wrong "

 

Discrimination comparisions made by me seemed to fit given the comments by Creighton Duke. Surely the catholic connection didn't go over anyone's head.

 

[Someone]

back to the topic:

 

stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against.

[Junior]

back to the topic:

 

stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against.

 

Yes. This.

[Creighton Duke]

back to the topic:

 

stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against.

Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case?

[StPaulHusker]

back to the topic:

 

stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against.

Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case?

Gays and people that Christians don't like. See above posts. It's all the same.

[Creighton Duke]

back to the topic:

 

stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against.

Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case?

Gays and people that Christians don't like. See above posts. It's all the same.

But nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination.

[StPaulHusker]

back to the topic:

 

stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against.

Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case?

Gays and people that Christians don't like. See above posts. It's all the same.

But nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination.

I know that. You know that. Some other people don't.

[Creighton Duke]

back to the topic:

 

stopping discrimination is not the exclusive providence of those being discriminated against.

Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case?

Gays and people that Christians don't like. See above posts. It's all the same.

But nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination.

I know that. You know that. Some other people don't.

Gotcha

[Someone]

Who is being discriminated against in the Redskins case?

Gays and people that Christians don't like. See above posts. It's all the same.

But nobody is preventing them from doing anything, hence, no discrimination.

I know that. You know that. Some other people don't.

Gotcha

Wow. The fact that anyone asked is a real head-shaker:

================

Race/Color Discrimination & Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s race or color.

Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols.

================

a Korean-American customer has accused a Hooters restaurant in Queens of taking that carefree ethos too far and has sued the company for racial discrimination for putting a racial slur on the receipt.

I'd say some have expressed a very narrow and limited understanding of discrimination.