Tuesday, August 26, 2014

PC Has Just Gone TOO Far. Hear these people about this.


Fredd said...

Dan Snyder is hanging tough. He knows this kind of PC stuff blows over given the fullness of time.

My prediction: the Redskins are here to stay. The only team left with a fight song ('Hail to the Redskins') worth its salt.

The other team with the fight song bit the dust, though, a couple of decades ago (remember that ditty, 'Houston Oilers, Houston Oilers...') Wonder whatever happened to those guys?

sue hanes said...

Joe - These people bring up good points. I was against it at first but now I wonder if it is ok. There are more important things to worry about - right?

Dave Miller said...

Joe, lots of opinion there, and people are entitled to their own opinion. Except that is the one person who said no asked Native Americans their opinion. he is simply wrong on the facts, as many Native American groups have indeed spoken out against the name Redskins.

Now this is not to say that the other people in the video are lying, but an equally slick video could be made to show people against the name Redskins speaking just as boldly and forcibly.

The fact is there are a lot of people on both sides of the issue, and many of them have legitimate reasons for their beliefs. But I think the available data, as opposed to anecdotal evidence suggests that a majority of Native Americans favor a name change.



We gave up using terms like kikes, limeys, spics, wops, beaners and many others years ago... why not Redskins?

Frank Gordon said...

Because Being P c is stupid , and just a liberals way of thinking

Dave Miller said...

Frank... nice of you to deal in facts... using your logic, couldn't liberals just say being obstinate and refusing to use offensive language and term is also stupid... and just how conservatives think?

Where does this get us? We may feel better, but in the end, we are no closer to getting along or coming to a mutually agreeable solution, are we?

Joe said...

DM: In his own way, Frank is absolutely, unequivocally correct. PC is stupid from the get-go. It's just stupid. PC demands that if a group is loud enough and whiny enough and thin skinned enough they should be obeyed. There are certain references to certain types of people that are abhorrent, but that should not mean they should not be allowed. You guys scream "FREE SPEECH" loud enough to shake the rafters, but you really mean "Limit speech to what we want to say, not what others want to say."

Dave Miller said...

Joe, I'm not screaming free speech at all... besides the concept of free speech, enshrined in the first amendment is meant to limit the government's power to abridge that right.

As individuals, people are free to say whatever they want, and other individuals are free to impose consequences, if they want.

The larger question, which I've never heard any conservative answer is why, after someone tells you they are offended by certain names, people would still want to use those names.

Go ahead and say what you want... but if a majority of people are offended, be prepared to suffer the consequences.

If the thought of people self censoring their language so as to speak politely to folks, and not offend them is seen as liberal PC stuff, I'm proud of it.

You yourself Joe practice this on your blog. There is language you do not allow. Explain to me how that is also not PC thinking?

Why can't someone come here and call another person, or you, an effing As#Ho*e troll? Because you have determined that such language is offensive.

What is the difference?

Besides... as a MAC guy, I pretty much agree, PC's are stupid...

Duckys here said...

@Joe --- if a group is loud enough and whiny enough and thin skinned enough they should be obeyed.

That's right, Joe, these minorities should know their place and not get uppity.


DM: "Explain to me how that is also not PC thinking?"

Has nothing to do with PC. It has to do with my rules on my blog. It is not for political reasons and whether it is correct depends on one's point of view.

On this blog, my point of view is the only one that matters.

Thom* said...

Yeah Joe, Like Dave Miller says
"What Difference Does it make Now"?

Dave Miller said...

Thom, where did I say, or even imply that?

Frequently when people can't make a cogent argument using facts, they resort to lies and name calling... Good job...

Dave Miller said...

Joe, I noticed you chose not to deal with the factual inaccuracies of your video... Why is that?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know how many of Ducky's neighbors are minorities?

Duckys here said...

Hey anonymous, I live in Everett, Mass.

It's working class and my neighbors are Syrian, Brazilian and Haitian.

Where do you live, White Bread?

Dave Miller said...

Don't expect a response other than another drive by remark Ducky...

We've learned from experience that the anons of the world and the fake moniker folks that they are unable or unwilling to join the conversation, choosing a lame insult hit and run assault instead...

Dave Miller said...

Frank Gordon... thank you for visiting my mission themed blog...

Why did you feel a need to leave a comment with foul language? Are you unable to express yourself without resorting to the type of language that many find offensive?

But, as I said here, you are free to do so, and I exercised my right to delete your foul, offensive and crude comment.

I've shown numerous times over the years that I have no problem with opposing viewpoints being expressed in a civil way.

Sadly, apparently, you do not hold that as a personal value.

Joe... sorry about using your space to respond, but I doubt Frank was going to be returning to my blog...

I truly appreciate your willingness to continue to allow some of us more liberal bloggers to post here.

Even though we disagree on much, I know I've tried to keep it civil, and you have too.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

First, American Indians are NOT a "majority of the people," nor from what I have seen do a majority of them even care about the issue.

But the real point is this: where is there a "right" to not be offended?!?!

The oh-so-tolerant left couldn't care less about the millions of Christians who are offended by being forced to give sanction to same-sex fake marriage.

Duckys here said...

Yes, Dave, I'm expecting silence.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "First, American Indians are NOT a "majority of the people,"...

They used to be. Ya know, before we killed them all.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...



Do you have a frog in your pocket? No one in my family history killed any Indians.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, I am guessing you did not choose to peruse the links that show that yes, a majority of Native Americans are in fact offended by the term Redskin, contrary to your view that a majority of "them"even care about the issue.

Glenn, you are correct in that there is no right to "not be offended"... but it seems to me that it is just bad manners, and disrespectful, to call someone names they find offensive that are based on things like skin color and race, which one cannot choose.

Are you saying you support using stereotypical names for people based on these characteristics?

Why, or why not?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


I doubt stats because they could not have talked to every Indian out there. They talk to enough to get the answers they want.

The term "Redskin" never used to be considered offensive. From studies I have read, many even called themselves that. And it is a myth that the term derived from scalps.

It is NOT used as a derogatory term, rather as the name of a team it is honoring them. Most people understand that.

Dave Miller said...

Well Glenn, if you doubt actual numbers and statistics, then there can be no common ground.

It's like the people who said they are sure more people voted in Ohio than there are voters, yet they refused to accept the numbers from the Sec of State.

If people will willingly ignore stats, then what can we do? People just believe what they choose to believe, independent of any evidence.

That's what happened to the Romney campaign in 2012. All the numbers said they were going to lose, but they refused to believe it, thinking the Dems were gaming the numbers. Even Karl Rove, as the numbers were coming in refused to believe it.

I have no idea as to the genesis of the term Redskin. I just know, sadly from stats, as opposed to anecdotal information, that a majority of native Americans do not like the term and would prefer it not be used.

That to me is reason enough not to use it.

Sadly, for many, and I suspect you included, that does not matter.

I don't see this as PC run amok, I see it as being respectful and polite.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


There are stats which are pretty solid. But when you take surveys on these types of things, you have to know how many people were polled, what was the diversity (location, age, tribe, etc) so as to determine just how much the survey actually reflected the facts.

I have seen too many opinion surveys which poll perhaps 1000 people and then claim they can extrapolate that across the board, and then you discover the 1000 people surveyed had little diversity. What matters in surveys is how they were done. And I have seen responses of too many Indians who couldn't care less to quickly dismiss them.

If you study the origin of the term you will discover that, while some people did indeed use it derogatorily, it was mostly used just descriptively, which is why even Indians used it to refer to themselves.

Now we have the culture of everyone being offended about something and it becomes a huge deal. It is indeed PC run amok.

Even so, it is not the government's business (local, state, federal, etc) to tell people what they can use for team names.

Duckys here said...

You are correct, Glenn that the term in its earliest usage was merely descriptive but the usage changed and it became negative after the Civil War.

Meaning changes, just look at "marriage".

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Meanings only change when people have an agenda to push with the new meaning.

"Redskin" did NOT change after the Civil War - you revise history.

"Marriage" hasn't changed - it still means the union of opposite-sex people. Perverts in the world are trying to change the meaning, but the majority of the people still know the truth.

Duckys here said...

My bad, Glenn.

I forgot that any disagreement with you is revisionist.
I'll try to do better in the future.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


You are showing your fool side again.

How do you account for the later 1800s and even early 1900s when "Redskin" was still used as descriptive and not denigrating?

Oh, I forgot, you pick and choose what you wan to believe

Joe said...

Been working 12 hour days and y'all got ahead of me.

When we first got to this land, "Redskin" was both descriptive and pejorative, depending on the context and who was using the term.

Later, the term was embraced by Indians (oops...that's not PC...see what I mean?).

Today the term "Indian" is seen as incorrect (presumably because stupid people might confuse it as meaning someone from India), and we must use "Native American," because they were born here and we invaded them.

Wait! I was born here! So, I am Native American! Oh, dear! It has become so confusing!

Historically, there were three anthropological classifications of races: Negroid, Caucasoid and Occidental. American Indians were classified as Occidental from Mongoloid strain, it being believed that they migrated to this continent from Asian lands.

Negroids were pejoratively referred to as the "N" word, Occidentals were called the "C" word and Caucasians were called the "W" word, although none of them were really white.

But these things are never (pardon the pun) black or white. There are various mixtures and the whole thing has become muddled indeed.

The point is, we are headed for a time when using words that are actually descriptive of the people of whom we are speaking is not allowed.

We soon will not be able to identify a bank robber by saying he was about 6 feet tall, 180 pounds and black (or white or Asian).

PC has gone too far.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, is it possible that some of this is just the evolution of language?

The meaning of many words has, over time changed. Sometimes for better, sometimes worse.

Maybe this is just another example of that happening. Society is making a decision that certain words are no longer appropriate in polite company, so language changes.

Is different wrong? Can't it be neutral?

Joe said...

DM: Umm...sort of what I said.

Trouble is we're changing some words to mean something else and failing to replace them with words that describe what the changed words used to mean.

What is the union of a man and woman called? It used to be called marriage. Now marriage means something else and there has been no word to replace its former meaning. We don't have a word to describe the union of a man and a woman.

Gay used to mean care-free and foot-loose. Now it means homosexual. We "replaced" it (or more correctly had a substitute for it) with "happy."

"Words appropriate in polite company" has come to mean anything you want to say, anytime you want to say it, in any kind of company; mixed, adult/child; workplace and anywhere else as long as the words are not Politically Incorrect.

Politically Incorrect words can get you thrown out of a classroom, kicked out of a job, spit on and even arrested! But the "S" word, the "C" word, the "GD" word(s) and the "H" word cannot be challenged under any circumstances because they are protected free speech!


Duckys here said...

What are the "S", "C" (Christian?), "GD" and "H" words?

Duckys here said...

Joe, it seems to me that "traditional marriage" is serving the right wing adequately.

You can still use gay in the traditional fashion but, yes, it that is archaic. I hope that upheaval in language hasn't restricted your ability to express yourself.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Traditional marriage" is a misnomer. Marriage isn't about tradition, because traditions change.

REAL marriage is the term which should be used, as opposed to same-sex fake marriage.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, marriage is the matrimonial relationship between two people. For years it has meant that relationship between a man, and a woman.

Now the definition has been expanded to mean that relation between two people.

Glenn, your views on marriage do not allow for the meaning of words to change. Are you saying that language and words are static, and not able to be changed?

Joe, what is the protected free speech of which you speak? As for your list, if I've got a few of your letters figured out, I hope those words get you kicked out of school.

Just like using George Carlin's seven words should... s, p, f, c, cs, mf, and t...

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Glenn, your views on marriage do not allow for the meaning of words to change. Are you saying that language and words are static, and not able to be changed?

It isn't just MY views about marriage, rather it is the view of culture in all the world for thousands of years. Some words can't change because they have a definition that can't change, and "marriage" is one of them.

Should we change the meaning of "four" or "five" just because someone wants to give their own meaning to those words?

Joe said...

DM: "I hope those words get you kicked out of school."

You haven't walked the hallways of a school in the past 10 years, have you?

Most of those words are all you hear. The kids mumble unintelligibly except when they are swearing, cursing or being vulgar.