Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

[dsc123]

It's your right to assume;

the PTO came up with this on their own without any prompting from the oval office,

the IRS just decided to audit conservative organizations on their own,

That NSA spent trillions of dollars to spy on their own people without the government knowing

We all just woke up one day and Iraq was in trouble...again and needs us to bail them out.

Illegal immigration isn't an economic and social strain within our country

I see a government that is corrupt at all levels executing their own personal agendas versus running the country.  The liberals here seem to think I only point the finger at the left, but I don't, it's pointed at the POTUS, House and Senate, the left and the right.  Stop defending incompetency and demand more from both sides rather than worrying about holding to your party lines.

I'm not assuming any of those things.  And I'm not trying to make this about politics, so I'm not going to respond about the NSA, IRS, and whatever else.  But with respect to the PTO and the redskins, what is your point?  That the head of the executive branch should not influence the decisions of executive agencies?  That is his job.

I don't understand what the point of all this is.  Are you arguing that the word "Redskins" is not offensive and was only ruled to be "derogatory" because Obama put his thumb on the scale?  Did you read the opinion?  Do you disagree with the analysis?  Do you dispute the evidence identified in the 77-page chart at the end? No.  Your only response is to blame Obama and dismiss it out of hand. Then accuse others of holding to "party" lines in a debate that only you brought politics into.

"Stop defending imcompetency"?  What are you even talking about?  The PTO ruled on an appeal.  What incompetency?

[Spyder]

Eh, this is going in a place that there is probably no coming back from lol. I think this is going to end up in a few long-time members looking like conspiracy nuts, or saying some things that probably don't belong in a Redskins logo ruling.

[Lihu]

It's your right to assume;

the PTO came up with this on their own without any prompting from the oval office,

the IRS just decided to audit conservative organizations on their own,

That NSA spent trillions of dollars to spy on their own people without the government knowing

We all just woke up one day and Iraq was in trouble...again and needs us to bail them out.

Illegal immigration isn't an economic and social strain within our country

I see a government that is corrupt at all levels executing their own personal agendas versus running the country.  The liberals here seem to think I only point the finger at the left, but I don't, it's pointed at the POTUS, House and Senate, the left and the right.  Stop defending incompetency and demand more from both sides rather than worrying about holding to your party lines.

Each point you brought up has a reason, without making any assumptions:

1) It is possible that someone in the PTO decided that they wanted to "help" the situation, where there was a standoff on this naming issue. Who knows why, though. It might just be a CYA action on the part of the PTO that they "endorsed" a name that is offensive to some citizens, and corrected it.

2) It is possible that the IRS audits those who are outspoken against paying taxes, seems logical. I've been audited a few times, and been given back money every time I was audited. They no longer audit me.

3) NSA just decided to store all the traffic on cell phones at a time when it was not "illegal" to do so. They thought that they only need a warrant to "mine" that data. The air waves are open. If you say something across a public channel like any normal Ham radio RF signal, it was deemed public information. Kind of like shouting to your friend across a crowded room. They might have done it with the intention of preventing future crisis.

4) Iraq has always been an issue, from the first day we decided to overthrow their government. We did not wake up one day and "discover" that there is a problem. I'm not saying if we did the right thing or not, but it is getting close to a 2 trillion dollar problem which accounts for at least 2/17ths of our national debt.

5) Illegal immigration is a natural occurrence with neighboring countries with poor economies. The economies were quite possibly ruined by our policies instilled in the mid 1980s.

I don't see any government conspiracies, but the people who made the decisions think/thought they were doing the right thing for our country. Obviously, more thought should have been put into some of these actions before performing them.

[MS256]

Each point you brought up has a reason, without making any assumptions:

1) It is possible that someone in the PTO decided that they wanted to "help" the situation, where there was a standoff on this naming issue. Who knows why, though. It might just be a CYA action on the part of the PTO that they "endorsed" a name that is offensive to some citizens, and corrected it.

2) It is possible that the IRS audits those who are outspoken against paying taxes, seems logical. I've been audited a few times, and been given back money every time I was audited. They no longer audit me.

3) NSA just decided to store all the traffic on cell phones at a time when it was not "illegal" to do so. They thought that they only need a warrant to "mine" that data. The air waves are open. If you say something across a public channel like any normal Ham radio RF signal, it was deemed public information. Kind of like shouting to your friend across a crowded room. They might have done it with the intention of preventing future crisis.

4) Iraq has always been an issue, from the first day we decided to overthrow their government. We did not wake up one day and "discover" that there is a problem. I'm not saying if we did the right thing or not, but it is getting close to a 2 trillion dollar problem which accounts for at least 2/17ths of our national debt.

5) Illegal immigration is a natural occurrence with neighboring countries with poor economies. The economies were quite possibly ruined by our policies instilled in the mid 1980s.

I don't see any government conspiracies, but the people who made the decisions think/thought they were doing the right thing for our country. Obviously, more thought should have been put into some of these actions before performing them.

Wow! There is so much difference between the way we think that it's amazing we can all live in the same country.

Sort of sad really because I don't think our differences were always quite that drastic on that many fronts.

Although admittedly before the internet I probably wouldn't have known it because I only knew people that basically thought like I did.

[newtogolf]

Wow! There is so much difference between the way we think that it's amazing we can all live in the same country.

Sort of sad really because I don't think our differences were always quite that drastic on that many fronts.

Although admittedly before the internet I probably wouldn't have known it because I only knew people that basically thought like I did.

I agree and for those reasons I'm banning myself from the thread.

[Lihu]

Wow! There is so much difference between the way we think that it's amazing we can all live in the same country.

Sort of sad really because I don't think our differences were always quite that drastic on that many fronts.

Although admittedly before the internet I probably wouldn't have known it because I only knew people that basically thought like I did.

It's all speculation, of course.

Not sure what is diametrically different in our way of thinking from what I wrote, though. I just tend to think our government is too stupid to launch any purposeful conspiracies against any particular group.

I think politicians are having enough difficulty getting (re-)elected.

[dsc123]

Why don't we just stay on topic rather than ending the conversation due to differences of opinion over irrelevant political issues?

[Lihu]

Why don't we just stay on topic rather than ending the conversation due to differences of opinion over irrelevant political issues?

Good idea, and I apologize to anyone I might have offended.

Now the trademark has lost it's protection under the law, does it make sense for the organization to retain the name? What percentage of their revenue is from merchandising?

[Gunther]

I agree and for those reasons I'm banning myself from the thread.  :beer:

I'm with you pards.

[boogielicious]

Good idea, and I apologize to anyone I might have offended.

Now the trademark has lost it's protection under the law, does it make sense for the organization to retain the name? What percentage of their revenue is from merchandising?

It could get overturned.  They had it revoked in 1999 only to be overturned in 2003.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Good idea, and I apologize to anyone I might have offended.

Now the trademark has lost it's protection under the law, does it make sense for the organization to retain the name? What percentage of their revenue is from merchandising?

Not very much, and any loss would be shared.

It might be a net positive though, since people would likely buy the new apparel.

Quote:

The NFL closely holds the financial figures, so it is unclear how much of the Redskins’ revenue comes from merchandising. Last year, thanks in part to a new apparel deal with Nike and wider coverage by the NFL Network, national revenue of $179.9 million was equally split among the league’s teams ( via ESPN ).

That's only apparel, I think.  But maybe that times two is total merchandise?

Quote:

National Football League owners voted to approve $27.9 billion of TV deals with Fox, CBS and NBC on Wednesday, confirming pro football as the driving force in an industry facing fundamental change.

So its a tiny fraction of the TV revenue.    Plus

Quote:

The Packers reaped $13 million from concessions, parking and local media in 2010, which figures to about $416 million NFL-wide.

In 2010, Green Bay cleared $60 million from home and away game tickets plus private boxes.

So totally ball-parking it, teams make almost $1B from national TV deals, 70M from tickets, consessions, parking, and local TV, and maybe 11M in merch.

edit:  That $28B is likely not per year.....

ok here we go

Quote:

Including deals with ESPN and satellite broadcaster DirecTV, the NFL will collect about $6 billion a year in total TV revenue beginning in 2014, a figure that will likely increase the following year after the DirecTV deal expires.

So teams get about 187M each from National TV, 70M from local revenue, and 11M or so in Merch.

[Pretzel]

Good idea, and I apologize to anyone I might have offended. Now the trademark has lost it's protection under the law, does it make sense for the organization to retain the name? What percentage of their revenue is from merchandising?

I don't see many people walking around in Redskins shirts (at least I've never seen one in Colorado, did see a single one in Michigan once though) so I would imagine not as large a percentages as the teams like the Broncos, Patriots, or the old Colts that had/have the big names like Manning or Brady that people buy just because they like the person, not neccesarily the team. Just this last year I bet Pat Bowlen (owner of the Broncos) made at least 25 million on Peyton Manning jerseys at $150 or more a pop.

[Lihu]

It could get overturned.  They had it revoked in 1999 only to be overturned in 2003.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

They're confident that the team will win again, but I wonder if it is the right thing to keep it.

Not very much, and any loss would be shared.

It might be a net positive though, since people would likely buy the new apparel.

That's only apparel, I think.  But maybe that times two is total merchandise?

Yes, I see this as an opportunity to sell a whole new set of merchandise, and show that they are not trying to offend anyone. What could be a better scenario?

[dsc123]

I don't see many people walking around in Redskins shirts (at least I've never seen one in Colorado, did see a single one in Michigan once though) so I would imagine not as large a percentages as the teams like the Broncos, Patriots, or the old Colts that had/have the big names like Manning or Brady that people buy just because they like the person, not neccesarily the team. Just this last year I bet Pat Bowlen (owner of the Broncos) made at least 25 million on Peyton Manning jerseys at $150 or more a pop.

I don't think it works like that.

The Redskins have a very loyal following locally.  Baltimore didn't always have a team, so they have fans all over Maryland, Virginia, and probably even west virginia and Delaware.  They have a pretty big local market.

[DoubleEagle]

Political correctness should run both ways.  Seems to me that it is the Liberal side that is always claiming the use of political correctness to push and agenda.

I have been around for a long time, and believe that PC has created more false concerns than before the advent of PC.  Right there with PC is the aspect of Entitlement.

I believe that an age old document states that All Men Are Created Equal...I believe it gives us all the same inalienable rights.  Some tend to do more with less and some tend to

make the most out of circumstances they are dealt.  I guess what I am saying that the Government has its hands in to many things and they do not take care of the things they should

take care of and address.

PC is a danger, PC is un-American, and it is not needed.  Homosexuals represent about 5% of the population and the government wants to cater to them like they are a majority.

As you have probably surmised, I am not a liberal, but I do not claim to be a conservative either.  I believe you just do the right thing and if it pisses some people off, they will get over it in time.

So, should we make the Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Florida State Seminoles change their name....NO-HELL NO!

[Lihu]

Political correctness should run both ways.  Seems to me that it is the Liberal side that is always claiming the use of political correctness to push and agenda.

I have been around for a long time, and believe that PC has created more false concerns than before the advent of PC.  Right there with PC is the aspect of Entitlement.

I believe that an age old document states that All Men Are Created Equal...I believe it gives us all the same inalienable rights.  Some tend to do more with less and some tend to

make the most out of circumstances they are dealt.  I guess what I am saying that the Government has its hands in to many things and they do not take care of the things they should

take care of and address.

PC is a danger, PC is un-American, and it is not needed.  Homosexuals represent about 5% of the population and the government wants to cater to them like they are a majority.

As you have probably surmised, I am not a liberal, but I do not claim to be a conservative either.  I believe you just do the right thing and if it pisses some people off, they will get over it in time.

So, should we make the Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Florida State Seminoles change their name....NO-HELL NO!

Of course, PC should go both ways. Any person should be treated with the utmost respect regardless of the circumstances they were born or brought up.

Agreed that our government is really trying to do way too many things to be effective, and every elected politician wants to add one more thing to the list of things they do.

BTW, regarding the homosexual statistics: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf

Not quite as much as you listed, in fact only 1.8% of men and 1.7% lesbian.

If even a small but measurable portion of the population is offended by something (in this case 30% of the native American population), I would say just change it. I understand that the name was probably never intended to offend anyone, but what is the reason for fighting it? Is this part of some larger political picture that I am not aware?

[dsc123]

Any person should be treated with the utmost respect regardless of the circumstances they were born or brought up.

If even a small but measurable portion of the population is offended by something (in this case 30% of the native American population), I would say just change it. I understand that the name was probably never intended to offend anyone, but what is the reason for fighting it? Is this part of some larger political picture that I am not aware?

This is it.  I posted this earlier, but I can't say it any better than a friend of mine did this morning:

[The phrase PC is] only used to disparage the notion that you shouldn't be an a***** when you speak.

Not calling Native Americans "Redskins" isn't "PC".  It's common f****decency.

The other point about anti-PC that annoys me is that when language is modified to suit some group of people, is it such a f**** burden to alter your vocabulary.  Disabled?  F*** that!  I called me cripples in 1967, and I'm calling them cripples today.

Why would anyone think that his desire to keep using a word trumps the dignity of the group that is insulted by that word?

[Abu3baid]

Interesting thread - just signing up to see how this unfolds.. Like @Spyder exactly! I can see this one blowing up very soon especially when you start talking about so many subjects that different people have different sensitivity levels on!