Bill81361

Members
  • Content count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

97 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Baltimore

Recent Profile Visitors

1,841 profile views
  1. MLB changes 2018?

    I'm waiting to get the All Star cap when it's available.
  2. Ah, but there is a price, you said it in your next sentence, 100%. I again ask if it is a societal problem, (and I'm not saying it isn't) why suggest that it can be bought off with mere money? In July 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled "the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause." As such, Dan Snyder has trademark protection for the team name. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/2017/06/29/a26f52f0-5cf6-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.15a2aa044bf1 In short, what you think "should" happen, won't, and Dan Snyder can not be compelled otherwise, at least by the Government, or society. Now if the owners strong arm one of their fellow billionaires, as MLB did with Cleveland, who knows. Clark Hunt and the Chiefs might not want to go along. Maybe the Chiefs can be bought off, I don't know, but it appears Dan Snyder has enough money and can't be bought off by the league.
  3. Would you be offended by the name without the logo? Again, since I won't claim to speak for everyone, I think most would agree the "Red Sambo" logo was a terrible stereotype. I apologize for my careless wording, when I should've added dispossessed by this country, and you were right to highlight Jews. Their history is full of slavery and being driven from their land.
  4. What I find curious is all the people who deem to speak on behalf of a group outside their own when that same group has a voice and predominantly chooses not to use it themselves with a few exceptions. I go back to the question I asked before, "How does one determine the price tag for it no longer to be a problem?" Who gets to decide the price? How much of a societal problem is it really when it can be simply bought off? Well, I wasn't really offended before, but if you're telling me there's big money in it, then, yeah, I am offended, now that you mentioned it. Money is really the driving motivation on both sides, isn't it? Does anyone think Cleveland's move was altruistic or was it that MLB was threatening them behind the scenes? Speaking as someone who was a Redskins fan, I wish they'd lose the name if only to put an end to the discussion.
  5. It goes against the argument made by people outside a certain group that a word is offensive, when the group they claim to be speaking for embraces it. I think if a word is deemed offensive or worse than no one should use or own it. Moreover, if the name is truly a problem, does "donating the profits" make it no longer a problem? How does one determine the price tag for it no longer to be a problem? If a problem can be dismissed with money, then why is Dan Snyder still under attack? After all "Redskins foundation gave $3.7 million to more than 20 tribes, the team says" https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/redskins-foundation-gave-37-million-to-more-than-20-tribes-the-team-says/2016/01/15/abc03fd0-baeb-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html Peace
  6. Nice strawman you created. The reference to political correctness applied to the name, not the logo, which most can agree was "Red Sambo" bad. The origin of the name "Indians" was based on a former player named Louis Sockalexis, but I bet you knew that. It's OK for European Americans to use stereotypes of other European Americans? If an owner were to use what would now be a derogatory term for Jews, Polish, Italians etc. that would be fine because they aren't dispossessed people. "Treating other human beings like human beings" or like leprechauns. Got it. After all, the Irish don't have any problems being compared to Leprechauns or stereotyped as fighting. "New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name" https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html "In Arizona, a Navajo high school emerges as a defender of the Washington Redskins" https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-arizona-a-navajo-high-school-emerges-as-a-defender-of-the-washington-redskins/2014/10/26/dcfc773a-592b-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html
  7. The team name is the Celtics, not the Leprechauns. It is a cartoon characterization and not an attempt to depict Celtic people, as opposed to how the Vikings are portrayed as an example. Notre Dame hasn't garnered national backlash for Fightin' Irish. Should they? If no, why not? Do away with Chief Wahoo, I agree with the move. But if using "Indians" is not politically correct then that standard needs to be applied equally to other groups as well.
  8. MLB changes 2018?

    It was...and it was also released as a stadium giveaway, which is the point.
  9. MLB changes 2018?

    Orioles giveaway Saturday, July 14th. Official jersey as well? Black jerseys are usually worn Friday nights.
  10. MLB changes 2018?

    Can't wait to read the survey. Dear fans, what color uniforms would you like to see? A)Navy or B)"baby poop’ brown-and-yellow "
  11. MLB changes 2018?

    It could be some are sold out. I bought my Orioles low crown BP at the end of November.
  12. MLB changes 2018?

    Well, it's a look that worked for Baltimore decades ago, and I wish they went back to it.