Costas: Redskins 'an insult, a slur'

[petegz28]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/b...edskins-101313

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Examples: "That's mah ****er!" Friendly greeting or praise for doing something impressive.

Quite often a black man/woman will use ****er in the place of the word black or African American.

We've covered this already in the thread, haven't we?

Originally Posted by Rausch

So when a black man calls another black man ****er they are enraged, insulted, and angered every time because it's emotional and can't be controlled.

Right?...

I've already responded to this, haven't I?

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Obviously not. Consider the context.

However, one of them calls another a "house" n-word, then that carries with it a whole set of implications and derogatory hate that the word by itself doesn't generate amongst themselves.

The context plays into the psychological viscera. For instance, I can playfully call my lady the B word in the right, fun context. But with piss and vinegar attached to the word, it becomes something else entirely, and her reaction to it is something else entirely -- and justifiably so.

And you responded to that, did you not?

Originally Posted by Rausch

So both CONTEXT and INTENT come in to play?

Again, this means YOU MAKE THE DECISION when and if to be insulted.

And then I responded at length, right?

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Context and intent help sculpt the impact that derogatory words make.

I'm happy to admit that me calling a black man the N-word will have a different visceral impact that another black man calling him that.

I'm also happy to admit that me calling a black man the N-word will have a different visceral impact than a team of white people calling themselves the Harlem N-words. But they are both capable of creating adverse reactions, reactions that will be visceral.

You understand that you don't decide feelings, right?

You can react to your feelings, and channel them properly and deal with them as best as you can. But you can't decide what your feelings are.

Soooo... can we just skip ahead to where we are in the discussion now, instead of going back to square one?

'Preciate it.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by SNR

SHOULD

....welcome to our matriarchal parenting society.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by SNR

That's not the argument. The argument is SHOULD he change the name.

He can do what he wants.

The argument is this thread is that it should be changed because it's racist. Not if it should be changed or not.

It's like starting a thread because Apple sells $1,200 computers for $2,400. Yeah, it'd be smart to lower the price but they don't have to...

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Rausch

The argument is this thread is that it should be changed because it's racist. Not if it should be changed or not.

Can you explain this? I simply don't understand it, or at least the way you've phrased it.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Soooo... can we just skip ahead to where we are in the discussion now, instead of going back to square one?

'Preciate it.

I agree.

So why did you just post this?

But like the n-word, I simply can't imagine a single circumstance in which using the word "redskin" is anything but derogatory.

I thought we'd addressed that you CAN use it in a non-derogatory manner.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I agree.

So why did you just post this?

I thought we'd addressed that you CAN use it in a non-derogatory manner.

Because I have yet to hear anybody in this thread explain how the word "redskin" can be used in a non-derogatory matter outside of a sports mascot.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Can you explain this? I simply don't understand it, or at least the way you've phrased it.

There are two sides to the argument in this thread:

1) It must be changed: it's racist.
2) It shouldn't be changed.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Because I have yet to hear anybody in this thread explain how the word "redskin" can be used in a non-derogatory matter outside of a sports mascot.

Ok.

So why say it's exactly like the word ****er when we've both clearly agreed it isn't.

Again, go back to INTENT and CONTEXT.

Snyder isn't trying to insult. He isn't trying to offend.

He just clearly doesn't give a $#it if you are offended...

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Ok.

So why say it's exactly like the word ****er when we've both clearly agreed it isn't.

I didn't. But they both do have their inherently derogatory nature in common, and shouldn't be nationwide mascots.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Rausch

There are two sides to the argument in this thread:

1) It must be changed: it's racist.
2) It shouldn't be changed.

It should be changed, I think is what Costas, SNR, and myself are arguing. Not that it should be legally mandated.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

All these chairs you keep throwing in my way before you answer SNR's challenge... are telling. This is now the second thing you've demanding that I respond to until you agree to answer SNR's challenge. The second thing.

If somebody found my usage of the term "black man" in the post you're referring to insensitive or derogatory, than that would be news to me. As I was saying to Rausch earlier, context matters.

But like the n-word, I simply can't imagine a single circumstance in which using the word "redskin" is anything but derogatory. That, along with words like chink and the n-word, make it inherently unacceptable for being the mascot.

That's my response. I am now asking you, for the third time, to respond to SNR's challenge.

How many posts have you made since I challenged you to explain why the Redskins would choose a slur for their name without giving me an answer?

Unlike SNR's challenge, which is completely irrelevant, you've admitted several times that context matters. So why do you ignore the context of exaltation involved in the use of Redskins as the name of an NFL franchise?

I wouldn't use the word "redskins" in any normal, non-NFL context because the phrase is archaic. But like "negro" and "oriental", archaic is different than slur.

Now when are you going to address my question?

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It should be changed, I think is what Costas, SNR, and myself are arguing. Not that it should be legally mandated.

I don't think so. They're saying it should be forced change.

It has to be - Snyder has clearly stated, multiple times, he will NOT change it.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by stevieray

....welcome to our matriarchal parenting society.

Do you have a learning disability?

There's a difference between "Should Daniel Snyder change the name?" and "Should he be forced to change the name?"

Which one do you think is the argument at hand in this thread? And if you say the second one, you're a troll.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I didn't. But they both do have their inherently derogatory nature in common, and shouldn't be nationwide mascots.

It's not inherently derogatory just because you say it is.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by SNR

Do you have a learning disability?

awwww....hit a nerve, dad?