• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,145 Excellent


About Ice_Cap

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tampa, FL

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

67,090 profile views
  1. I would say "Vikings" falls into the catagory of "Braves" and "Chiefs." I would say the Blackhawks and Vikings' logos are roughly on the same level. More or less respectful depictions of their subject matter. Hell, I would add the Redskins' logo in with those as well. The logo doesn't seem to be the the problem there.
  2. That's really besides the point. Most of what we buy doesn't make our lives objectively better. I don't want to go to bat for the virtues of carbonated sugar water, but like it or not? It's a huge industry that has millions upon millions of loyal consumers. That may be a bad thing in and of itself, but it's the current reality we're working with. So getting them to promote LGBT equality ultimately does do some good simply by virtue of the audience they have. My point is that pushing them on that issue doesn't mean we're letting up on their abysmal labour and pollution track record. We can insist they help play a role in making society more inclusive while also insisting that they act in a more morally responsible way towards the planet, their consumers, and employees. I don't disagree. Statistically speaking though? Most people know at least one person who's either gay, a lesbian, bi, or transgendered. A lot of LGBT peoples are still in the closest though. So how do we get to the point where people will feel comfortable coming out of the closest? Well we need society as a whole to be more inclusive (not to take away anything from the progress we've made even in the last ten years or so). Getting corporations on board to help push pop culture, and thus culture as a whole, in the right direction isn't a bad or vapid or pointless thing. It matters. And it doesn't mean we stop pushing on other fronts as well.
  3. My question is "why is this an either/or" type of situation? Like it or not mass media and the corporate world define not only our pop culture, but the language and ideas with which we navigate the world. I know I've disagreed with DG's take that everything, including Richard Sherman, must be political, but he's not wrong in that most of what we consume in one way or another shapes how we view the world around us. So what you view as superficial I would say is morally responsible. Is making sure Coca-Cola a "LGBT ally" vapid? No, because Coca-Cola is a worldwide brand that reaches millions of people every year. If Coca-Cola can be convinced to even pay lip service to the idea that LGBT peoples are deserving of basic human decency? Then that's a positive net gain because a major contributor to pop culture pushing the way society as a whole feels about LGBT peoples in the right direction. You seem to be operating under the impression (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that most people concerned with this sort of thing are content at stopping with that. That's not the case. My desire to see a big company treat LGBT peoples as...well...people doesn't mean I'm not concerned about issues such as employee benefits, child labour in third world countries, living wages, or the calculated assault on organised labour. You're the one implying that people concerned about one set of issues aren't concerned with the other. As someone concerned with both? I think you're mistaken in your assessment. I do appreciate the opportunity to expand on that. I'd like to think it's not the only thing you took from my last post though.
  4. Cool, but then say that. Words have meanings. Try to be accurate when communicating.
  5. Brooklyn is on the "actual Island."
  6. The left wing's (and I'm including "bourgeois" liberals and democratic socialists in one big tent here) inability to turn out for an election that isn't as "sexy" as a presidential election is the single biggest issue hindering progressive politics in the United States. The GOP is already making noise about blocking ANY Supreme Court nominee Hillary will put forward, essentially admitting that they're willing to break an entire branch of government until they somehow wrestle the White House away from the Democrats. So what the Democrats need to do is seize on that narrative. It's not about just getting the Bernie supporters amped up for state and midterm elections. It's getting the entire left excited. The GOP will get their needed voter turnout to "keep Hillary in check." The Democrats need to find a way to make the message "let's make sure Hillary gets to govern" a galvanizing one. See, part of my issue with you in this thread is the fact that your caricature of "bourgeois liberals"/"the nominal left"/"centre left ghouls"/Hillary supporters seems so divorced from my reality. I would be a Hillary supporter if I could vote, and I've been a lifelong supporter of the Liberal Party in Canada, a party you likened to the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. So you're taking these potshots at the side I support, and none of them resonate. They're not stinging because they're too close to home. They're annoying because they seem entirely made up, or exaggerated, on your end. Brunch? Brunch?? The closest I get to going to brunch is ordering off of the all-day breakfast menu wherever it's offered. A fan of Girls? Never watched it. The West Wing? Meh. It's ok. It certainly didn't define my political outlook like you assume it has for "the nominal left." Veep? Ok, I'll cop to that one. I like Veep. I don't write for Vox, nor do I go out of my way to read it. As for identity politics? Pfft. The Tumblr-esque "SJW" stuff makes my brain melt. If that crowd makes me feel anything? It's anger at how their nonsense 1) gave the right wing an easy strawman of the left to construct and 2) absolutely trashed the term (and thus the idea, to a degree) "social justice." I find the idea of "safe spaces" in places of higher learning enraging and I find that identity politics as a concept reduces us all to unrealistic simplified caricatures of ourselves. So this line about Hillary supporters embracing SJW identity politics that you've been pushing? You can stop. And as for "the nominal left" not caring about "actual struggles"? Please. I'm in favour of raising the national minimum wage, expanding the public option re: health care in the US, and I'm on board with the idea of a "living wage." Outside of that? Well I'm a bisexual Jew. Not to invalidate what I said about identity politics (there's a difference between being drawn to causes that relate to you personally and letting one or two aspects of yourself define yourself as a whole), but that has drawn me to focusing on issues such as combating antisemitism and homophobia/transphobia in our society. Hell. If I were more of a cynical ? I could accuse you of "not caring about actual struggles" because you seem to have a flippant view of people who try to ensure that media and corporate America respect LGBT peoples, and you seem ready to die on a hill for Jeremy Corbyn despite the fact that he openly hangs out with people who spread the blood libel and actively want to kill Jews. From my perspective? I could easily write you off as someone who doesn't care about actual struggles, because you don't seem to care about my struggles. That would be pretty easy, but it would be tremendously unfair to you. From this thread and private conversations? I know that your convictions are genuine and the struggles you do care about are close to your heart. Like the ones that concern me are close to mine. So that's why I'm not in here ten times a day painting you and those like you with as broad and unflattering a brush as possible. Fact is you and I? The "bourgeois liberals" and democratic socialists? We're far more like-minded then perhaps a lot of us on both sides would like to admit. We're better off pushing for our common goals- a more inclusive society and a more economically equal society- together.
  7. I disagree with the central premise that the Blackhawks will be under pressure to change one day. You're assuming there's a "one-size fits all" approach to this issue (ie that all Native-themed sports identities are inherently problematic/bothersome to Native populations). @hockey week is right. That's not the case. Some cases, like the Redskins' name and Indians' Chief Wahoo, are clearly racist relics from the past that should be removed. Yet such clear-cut cases are the exception these days. Not the norm. Descendants of the Illini tribe objected to the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek mascot and logo, but seem fine with the name so long as the school and its teams don't use racist caricatures of their ancestors. The Seminole tribes of Florida seem to have fully embraced Florida State's use of the Seminole name and their logo, which depicts a Seminole warrior. The Fighting Sioux name at the University of North Dakota is an even muddier issue. UND had to stop using the name and logo because they failed to get permission from the two Sioux tribes living in North Dakota (in accordance with NCAA bylaws on the use of Native-themed names). And yet...neither tribe objected to the use of the Fighting Sioux name and logo. One tribe gave the ok, the other tribe declined to state their position one way or another. Now don't get me wrong. UND absolutely should have changed the nickname. They failed to get permission from both tribes, and that amounted to having to lose the name. No question there. To say that the Sioux tribes in North Dakota rejected the name though? That's not accurate either. The truth falls somewhere in the muddy, grey middle ground. With the three NCAA examples above? One school has the complete support of the tribes in question regarding name and logos. One has support for the name but not the logos, and one had to drop its name and logos because while the Native tribes in question didn't reject anything? They didn't give enough consent to satisfy the NCAA. That's just the NCAA. We have professional examples like the Chicago Blackhawks. This whole issue is being fuelled by objections to their logo, and this is the first time I've actually heard any. No Native groups seem to be particularly concerned with the Kansas City Chiefs either. A team with a name that isn't a slur and logo that doesn't even depict a Native person. The positives that separate the Blackhawks from the likes of the Indians' Wahoo logo and the Redskins' name have been covered. So I disagree with the hypothesis that we're trending in a direction that will see all Native-themed names and logos vanish eventually. We're not trending in that direction at all. The NCAA, the body with the most teams using Native-themed names, seems to be a hodgepodge of various levels of acceptance, from complete acceptance to complete rejection, with everything in between. What I'm saying is that this is really a case-by-case issue, where each team's logo and nickname need to be examined in an appropriate context, because there is no general trend in one direction (aside from moving away from obviously racist names and imagery). And in that regard? The Blackhawks are in a very strong position to keep their primary logo as-is.
  8. I thought it was crystal clear from the context of my two posts on the matter that I was only referring to the third parties in the US.
  9. Pretty much. Imagine each political party in the US nominating the very embodiment of its worst attributes. Democrats going with the ultimate representation of the professional politician who symbolizes the status quo and appears to be above the law. Republicans going with a hate-spewing proto-fascist who has focused his campaign on galvanizing white nationalist sentiments. Libertarians going with a man who seemingly has no concept of the world beyond America's borders and who wants to shrink the size of government to dangerously small levels. The Greens going with a woman who panders to anti-intellectual conspiracy theories and who is frighteningly ignorant as to how government actually works. You couldn't do a better job if you purposefully set out to create two-dimensional strawman nominees for each party.
  10. I really don't mean to toot my own horn, but I would like to think I've proven that doesn't have to be the case The problem is that even the minor parties in the US have chosen the worst possible candidates. The Libertarian Party's candidate, Gary Johnson, didn't know what Aleppo was, couldn't name a foreign leader he admired, and doubled down on that ignorance by stating that his lack of knowledge of geo-political affairs means he can't start any wars. All on top of having a dangerous tax policy that economists have stated over and over cannot work without really screwing over the middle class. The Green Party's candidate, Jill Stein, believes WiFi causes cancer, is an anti-vaxxer (despite being a medical doctor), and has hinted at being a 9/11 truther. All on top of having a terrible plan to alieviate student debt that puts her frightening lack of knowledge regarding American governmental and fiscal policy on full display. Long story short? The third party candidates are all crap in their own special ways too.
  11. Agreed. At most it would work as a special event-only alternate.
  12. The Chargers pulled out a close game??? That's two in a row
  13. I'll preface this by saying that I'm not interested in playing the "Oppression Olympics." Trying to compare two historical tragedies to decide which group "had it worst" is absolutely awful and cheapens the death of suffering of both tragedies. That being said? My people, Jews, do have quite a history of centuries of oppression. The exact same sort of oppression? No, but a long trail of hardships none the less (one of the Nazi defences at the Nuremberg Trials was that what they had done to the Jews of Eastern Europe was no different from what the US had done to the Native population). So I'm trying to approach this topic from the point of view of a people with a long history of being looked down upon and treated accordingly. And while I cannot speak to the Native experience specifically? I can speak to the broader perspective of being part of an often-derided minority group. With that in mind? A team named the "Maccabees" with a with a respectful depiction of the subject matter as a logo wouldn't offend me. That's why I cheer for Tottenham Hotspur FC in the Premier League. The team has always had a sizable Jewish fanbase (relatively speaking) and so racist fans of other teams referred to the team and their fans as "Yids" (that being a derogatory term for a Jewish person). The fans of the team, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, adopted the nickname themselves as a badge of honour. Obviously a team in the UK's largest city in one of the most high-profile leagues in the world isn't going to actively promote a racial slur as a nickname, but the fanbase's hijacking of an anti-Semitic term and turning the meaning around really did resonate with me.
  14. I'm usually in full agreement with you on these issues, and I do agree 100% with your reasoning here. I just don't feel like there's any case to be made in the case of the Chicago Blackhawks' logo. It's not a cartoonish caricature of a Native person. It's a respectful depiction of a Native warrior used by a team named after a Native military leader who defied the US government. I just cannot see what is offensive about this. This isn't a Washington Redskins situation where the name is undeniably a slur. It isn't a Cleveland Indians situation where the logo is essentially a red Sambo. Now I'm not going to claim I have any insight into what is considered offensive by Natives. I don't have an ounce in Native blood in me, and I can't speak to their cultural experiences. That being said? I am of an ethnicity that's had a rough time of it. And I'm trying to think of this in terms that relate to that. What if if there was a sports team named the Maccabees (that wasn't based in Israel) that used a respectful depiction of a 2nd Century BCE Jewish warrior? Not a cartoonish caricature, but a respectful depiction. I don't think I would take issue with that.