U.S. patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging - Page 4

DrPhil · #1 06-20-2014, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Exactly.

And let's not pretend that this is in regard to anything important like gay marriage, or abortion, or sending more troops to Iraq; it's a flippin' sports team mascot. If 10% of the American Indian population is offended (a number that is probably skewed, but let's just go with it), just shut up and change it already.

For the record, it is 10% of the limited number of people polled and there is a possible issue with the cultural and ethnic identities of the people polled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Out of the blue? Wasn't it you who pointed out on page 1 of this thread that a case has already been heard about the team's name, and that this has been an ongoing issue for 2 decades?

"Out of the blue" works better for his argument.

This is a team that was established in 1932 and there have always been people who deemed their use of "redskins". Always. If GCers know what was happening with American Indian populations in 1932 and the difficulty faced by populations in the 1930s-2010s we understand why there weren't massive protests and media speak outs until the 1980s-2010s.

Kevin · #2 06-20-2014, 01:30 PM

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended, then their views carry a lot less legitimacy. It doesn't matter how loud they get. They are trying by force of law to force an organization to do something which is going to cost it lots of money.

When Snyder bought the team, he should be been more-less entitled to rely on the fact that the courts had already or would soon already resolve things in his favor. Just about every legal analysis out there says this is going to be resolved in the team's favor yet again.

I can't understand why no one is at least equally up in arms that the Redskins are having to relitigate something which should be res judicata because some tiny sliver of a population was able to curry favor with the right Washington bureaucrats.

DeltaBetaBaby · #3 06-20-2014, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended, then their views carry a lot less legitimacy.

Tell me again what happens when we let the majority determine the rights of the minority?

Kevin · #4 06-20-2014, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Tell me again what happens when we let the majority determine the rights of the minority?

Actually you have it backwards. Here we have a sliver of a segment of a minority determining the rights of the Redskins franchise by having better connections in a certain D.C. office.

MysticCat · #5 06-20-2014, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Here we have a sliver of a segment of a minority . . . .

I'll ask a fourth time, Kevin: What's your basis for saying it's "a sliver of a segment"?

DrPhil · #6 06-20-2014, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended, then their views carry a lot less legitimacy.

That is not how it works.

It is extremely sad that you think you can give people permission to be offended. It is extremely sad that you think you get to weigh the legitimacy of offense. You technically do not even get to do that for fellow white people and you definitely do not get to do that for people other races and ethnicities.

You have been told this before so it is clear you intend to maintain your ignorance.

MysticCat · #7 06-20-2014, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended . . . .

Once again, Kevin, what's your source for this? You keep saying it, but you have yet to back it up.

DubaiSis · #8 06-20-2014, 01:49 PM

I think there's probably a reason why the acronym is used far more commonly. Did you know AT&T no longer officially stands for anything? It is no longer an acronym. Using that as a correlation, if Washington wanted to change their name to the Washington Rs and change the logo, hey I'm cool with that.

But on the issue of the NAACP, they must have made a statement addressing this issue at one time or another. If I'm quiet at work this afternoon I'll have to see if I can find something.

DrPhil · #9 06-20-2014, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

But on the issue of the NAACP, they must have made a statement addressing this issue at one time or another. If I'm quiet at work this afternoon I'll have to see if I can find something.

Yes and the difference is the NAACP is an organization founded by Black Americans, for Black Americans, and remains as such in 2014. Therefore, Black Americans have had discussions and will continue to have discussions about the relevance of the name at the time it was founded and today. There is no need for protest or trademark dispute.

If the Washington Redskins was founded by and for American Indians, either the name would have never been used or issues with the name probably would have been handled many years ago.

DubaiSis · #10 06-20-2014, 01:52 PM

I choose to believe he's just trolling and not THIS willfully ignorant.

Kevin · #11 06-20-2014, 03:26 PM

In 1933, what protests were there about the name of the organization?

DrPhil · #12 06-20-2014, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

In 1933, what protests were there about the name of the organization?

You need a history lesson. Seriously.

/sorry for triple post, too lazy to combine posts

agzg · #13 06-20-2014, 04:06 PM

Wouldn't a determination that the C in NAACP was disparaging come out of someone filing a complaint with the patent office, presumably someone affected by that disparagement? I mean, it's not like the patent office just woke up yesterday and decided "oh hay, Redskins is offensive! Let's look up all their trademarks and tell them to suck it!" Someone filed a complaint.

Also, general point: 1988 was 26 years ago. That's hardly "out of the blue."

DrPhil · #14 06-20-2014, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg

Wouldn't a determination that the C in NAACP was disparaging come out of someone filing a complaint with the patent office, presumably someone affected by that disparagement? I mean, it's not like the patent office just woke up yesterday and decided "oh hay, Redskins is offensive! Let's look up all their trademarks and tell them to suck it!" Someone filed a complaint.

Thank you.

irishpipes · #15 06-21-2014, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg

Wouldn't a determination that the C in NAACP was disparaging come out of someone filing a complaint with the patent office, presumably someone affected by that disparagement? I mean, it's not like the patent office just woke up yesterday and decided "oh hay, Redskins is offensive! Let's look up all their trademarks and tell them to suck it!" Someone filed a complaint.
Also, general point: 1988 was 26 years ago. That's hardly "out of the blue."

I don't believe a complaint was filed. The Redskins filed to renew their trademark.