quote:

Actually, I would propose a new NFL expansion franchise for the city of Washington DC, and the nickname could be "Congress." Members of the team would be chosen from the Senate and the House of Representatives, and they would have to play an actual NFL team every week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator3

When has it been okay to try to get around the word filter to say something most regular members know, isn't allowed? I do believe that I will start shutting things down for those who don't seem to understand that less moderation doesn't mean a free-for-all or that adults won't be expected to understand without two or three warnings.

If it continues, I will be in touch and it won't be to coddle members with warnings and consider your motivation speeches.

I'm all for adults being free to express themselves and was very much for less moderation, hoping that choices would provide a way for members to enjoy the forums in a way that suited them personally, but it seems some will test the system. We can always go back to heavy handed moderation with bans. That could be your individual choice. You do have one a this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


After all, how would we react if the team was named the Washington Negroes? Or the Washington Jews? And, what's worse, the name of Washington's team -- unlike the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks (named for an actual chief) or the Kansas City Chiefs -- is more than a mere racial reference. It is an actual racial epithet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I would propose a new NFL expansion franchise for the city of Washington DC, and the nickname could be "Congress." Members of the team would be chosen from the Senate and the House of Representatives, and they would have to play an actual NFL team every week.


No pads no helmets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

After all, how would we react if the team was named the Washington Negroes? Or the Washington Jews?

Comparing the name of the Washington team to Negroes and Jews suggests to me that one of your two brain cells isn't firing.

Also, the 1913 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines the term simply as "a common appellation for a North American Indian." No derogatory connotation was noted at that time. MacMillan calls it "an old word meaning 'Native American.'" And Dictionary.com records only that it is "often disparaging and offensive." So it's status as an epithet is largely a not yet fully accepted modern invention, and your race trolling completely ignores the context.

The Indians were brave and fierce warriors, and the Washington team is plainly employing the term as an honorific, not a slur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Would it or would it not be acceptable to use a term once in common use for an ethnic group but now considered a slur as a sports teams nickname?

It's only considered a "slur" by race trolls and grievance mongers (like you) inventing shit to whine about.

In 1999 the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ordered the cancellation of the trademarks of the Washington Redskins football team after finding that the use of the word redskin was "scandalous" and "may ... disparage" Native Americans or "bring them into contempt, or disrepute." Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed this decision on 30 September 2003, granting summary judgment for Pro-Football, Inc., against Cheyenne-Creek Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo and others. The court found that "the TTAB’s finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence..." the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. ~Source

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Evasion ignored. Answer the question.

I think my last post answered it nicely. Contact me under your new nick.