Go Red Sox!

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Go Red Sox!

  1. 8 minutes ago, infrared41 said:


    Again, if words are just words, what's your issue here? Again, show us the proper context for using a racial slur when talking about a football team and we'll take it under advisement. Until then, and I hate to be so blunt, deal with it. For the third time, and I can't stress this enough, please look up how free speech actually works. I'll provide a clue and you can take it from there, OK? CCSLC is not the US Government. CCSLC is a privately owned enterprise. Hell, it's not even American, it's Canadian. Now I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the US Bill of Rights does not apply to Canada.


    Finally, I'd like to offer some friendly advice, step away from the site for a while before you end up doing something you shouldn't.


    "For the third time, and I can't stress this enough, please look up how free speech actually works"


    That's the hypocrisy! There is no FREE SPEECH here, since you have edited my comment without even leaving a notification in the comment itself, so it looked like I have sent that thing of a comment. This is not the definintion of free speech; at least not when it's about its initial meaning. This doesn't make any sense to continue this debate.

  2. 11 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:


    My god.  I'm not a mod, but as someone with a little common sense, I'll attempt to respond to this.


    NOBODY IS ERASING HISTORY.  That's never been mentioned as an intent of the name change.  Never mentioned by the team, by the league, by the mods of this forum, by anyone.  Yes, it's silly that a slur is OK and bizzach is not, but it is what it is.


    When you look in the history books, it's going to have the R-word in it... I think.  If the history books simply refer to the team as Washington, then maybe it makes sense for the site to change, but I don't think that's happening.  Ernest Byner played for the Washington R-Words and nothing can change that.


    That being said, while history isn't being censored, there's no reason to use the word moving forward.  We can discuss Ernest Byner and Mark Rypien without using the word.  There's simply no reason to type it anymore.  


    Also - it takes time to go back and edit everything.  Just look at the team.  They have to change all their signs, graphics, advertisements, merch, etc  It is a process.  While the admins of this forum take it way too seriously and treat it like we're debating actual public policy that's going to impact millions of American lives, it's not practical to edit everything within the relatively short amount of time this has happened.


    And you guys just don't understand that this is just hypocritical bs in the first place? Wow! Has nothing to do with a lack of time to edit and change names, since CCSL won't change it anyway. I bet they won't. Because this would be against their own interests as a sports logo history website. That's the part where hypocrisy comes into play. Again: Words are just words – the context is important! Otherwise, freedom of speech gets restricted more and more and more. But some of you guys seem to have adapted to that reality without being bothered about. That's so typical for America.

  3. 4 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

    Just a suggestion - maybe enclose the replacement text inside of brackets so that it's more obvious that it's a replacement and not what the poster actually wrote.


    So like if I wanted to use the word [staff member, front office personnel, player, coach, or possibly cheerleader of the Washington Football Team that plays in Maryland and is headquartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia], while discussing players that played on the [Washington Football Team] championship teams from like 40 years ago or whenever that sorry-ass team ever won anything, it'd be clear that it was essentially a MOD EDIT


    Thank you. This is what really pi..ed me off!

  4. 12 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:


    So if the word you typed is (your words here:) "an unabigious[sic], utterly racist word, just like the N-word" then why would you not only use it, but then complain that it was edited?  Would you expect to be able to type the N-word?


    Why is the word still readable on CCSL? Answer me that quesion? https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/168/Washington_Redskins/


    How do you want to call this team using a nickname which they had from 1932-2020? You wanna censor the name completely, although they were called the way they were called in all these decades? As terrible as the name is, this will be very hard to do. How are you going to do that without distorting reality and denying their questionable history? Answer me that and we actually will have a basis for discussion.


  5. Go Red Sox said:


    My answer is: hopefully not. The word "staff member, front office personnel, player, coach, and possibly cheerleader of the Washington Football Team that plays in Maryland and is headquartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia" is without any doubt an unambigious, utterly racist word, just like the N-word.



    13 hours ago, infrared41 said:


    That is hilarious.



    What the heck is this, dear Moderators? This is not my exact comment that I have posted yesterday! You have modified it without at least sending me a message, leaving a notification in the comment itself? I've used that word, Washington's old nickname, although I've always been disliking it completely! And you replaced that word with a never-ending story like this? This is more than hilarious. This is bat....crazy. This means that from now on actually no one is not even allowed anymore to talk about the team using the name which they used prior to Snyder's decision? So much for the basic rights regarding free speech, also on this forum! One's not even allowed to use or talk about that effing nickname on a website like this (which by the way is still making it into the news elsewhere) "just" because the owner of the team (rightfully) decided to replace it with a different, non-racist name in the future?


    Guess what? Their old nicjname does still exist on this very website CCSL: https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/list_by_team/168/Washington_Redskins/


    Why? Well, I guess because this is what you usually call team history? I wonder why you haven't replaced that word with "Football Team" yet, since I can still read their old name here on that site all over the place. Are you going to ban that very word right here in the near future, too? I'm talking about that very team's history, uniforms, logos from 1932 till 2020! This could become tricky. And if not, why won't you do it? It all just doesn't make any sense anymore. You understand how ridiculous and overblown your reaction actually is? This is beyond rational thinking or common sense. It's just completely nonsensical and also absolutely hypocritical, due to the aforementioned reasons. How about picking one, since in this case, you can't have it both ways! That's by far the most ridiculous, most exaggerated reaction I've ever seen on this board – (MOD REDACTED) who's also been pro free speech at the same time, all the time. (George Carlin could teach you a lot about this). Words are just words. It's the context you're using these words which is crucial!


    To cut a long story short: this is my last comment on this Sports Logo News section, since I don't see any reason anymore to post comments about whatever it might be in the future, just to watch my comments getting edited without any notification by moderators who then turn them into surreal, deviant and ridiculous verbal structures for little or no reasons. What a joke.


  6. 28 minutes ago, Cujo said:

    For those who love the name "Kraken" -- Would you feel the same about the name if the current Washington or Edmonton football teams adopted Kraken as their mascot?


    I mean, same thing, right?


    Are you (still not) aware of the situation in Washington regarding their football team – for the past 40 years? Textbook case of apples-and-oranges comparison intended?

  7. 59 minutes ago, Cujo said:


    Let's do away with the word, I've got no problem with that.


    But if we go there, should we expect the same will be done with Indians, Braves, etc, since those names also offend many?


    My answer is: hopefully not. The word "staff member, front office personnel, player, coach, and possibly cheerleader of the Washington Football Team that plays in Maryland and is headquartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia" is without any doubt an unambigious, utterly racist word, just like the N-word. Whereas Braves and Indians are clearly not. The word Indian might not be the most appropriate, up-to-date term to describe and define Native Americans. Yet, it's definitely not a racist word. The only thing one could criticize about the word "Indian" is the fact that these people's roots aren't located in India since Columbus ended up in/on the wrong country/continent. It's definitely a historically incorrect term. And the word Braves? Seriously? Then we could also talk about whether broccoli is an offensive word or not.

  8. 33 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

    I bet for as many loudly angry Skins fans who are going to wear their slur hoodies for as long as they can, there are probably just as many who are relieved they can finally support their team proudly and without guilt.


    And, ultimately, it's sports. If fans can buy a new jersey, they will. Doing a two-step from Skin to WTF to Sentinels or whatever opens two new merchandise spending sprees. The final name will probably do better than the interim one, but I have to imagine Fanatics and the NFL and Daniel Snyder (I have no idea who actually makes money from merch sales) aren't actually that unhappy to essentially unveil two new uniforms and brands in two years.


    Right. Snyder will eventually benefit from that without any doubt. Again! In fact, he – the white billionaire – is the reason why this team has kept the name for more than 20 years (with Snyder at the helm), since he quite frankly didn't give a sh... about the team's racist nickname a bit. However, since main sponsor FedEx threatened to end the alliance with Snyder's team, he all of a sudden, within just two weeks or so, has collapsed under the pressure, ready to change his team's identity for obvious reasons, a topic that he didn't want to deal with for the past 20 years or more during his tenure as team owner.


    Racism has become a problem for Snyder not because of racism itself, but exclusively for financial reasons. Another classic example for "money rules the world". On the other hand, better late than never.

  9. On 7/22/2020 at 2:09 AM, L10nheart404 said:

    a few good shots  EdfDtphXYAAoroE?format=jpg&name=mediumEdfDthJWAAEOqM1?format=jpg&name=mediumEdfDtytWoAEaAvc?format=jpg&name=medium these are a huge upgrade, and this is up there with the Braves for best Atlanta sports uniforms


    I was completely wrong. The uniforms actually look very good. Same goes for the font that I didn't really like at first sight. All in all, this is way better than their previous sets. Good job, Hawks.

  10. 12 hours ago, 4_tattoos said:

    Well it's certainly unique. Although, I think it's kind of weird to consider an entire team to be one singular creature. Krakens probably would have been an easier sell for some people.


    I dig the logos, and the jerseys look alright. The number outline of the blue jerseys probably should've been red, but it's solid.


    There is no Krakens. It's sheep, fish and kraken.

  11. 18 hours ago, gothedistance said:

    I still want to call them the Washington Football Team. It's not the same now.


    "Problem" is that your trivial opinion thankfully doesn't count anymore. But you can still feast your eyes on memorabilia, videos or whatever is needed to make your eyes watery!


    Hail to the new era!

  12. 20 hours ago, Krz said:

    I honestly hate the argument that this “won’t change anything”. No one is claiming that the black W or dropping redskins will solve everything. The truth of the matter is that these teams aren’t part of the government, and their actions hold no real political power. So when we argue that the actions have no value and won’t contribute to further legislation, it undercuts the real purpose of the change and leaves some mad at the team for something they can’t control.


    I didn't say that "the actions have no value and won't contribute to further legislation". I used the word IF. The word IF is THE keyword. Basically, you're agreeing with me, you just don't like the way I've put it. And thanks for clarfiying that sports and politics are two different fields...



    20 hours ago, Gothamite said:


    More than that, I think these types of actions can and sometimes do result in real change.


    Marriage Equality was a punchline until enough Americans said "wait, why can't gay couples get married?"  Which happened in part because lots of people and companies started normalizing it.   A whole bunch of seemingly empty gestures added up to change minds. 


    The more we can normalize companies and schools and individuals saying "yeah, systemic racism is a real thing", the more likely it becomes that we'll muster the political will to actually do something about it.


    Individually?  Yeah, probably pretty meaningless.  But taken collectively, they can literally change the world.  So I'm loath to dismiss any of them, no matter how self-serving or crass.  If entities feel pressure to do the right thing, they're still doing the right thing.


    I was referring to police culture and police brutality against Afro-Americans. You won't change police culture through symbolism. That's a fact. Or how do you want to involve companies in this regard? It exclusively needs some appropriate, coherent legislation in order to start solving this giant problem because these cops won't change their attitude voluntarily. A fish always rots from the head down. And if politicians decide to keep looking away for obvious reasons – which they're doing as we speak – or in the best case scenario, throwing some legislative breadcrumbs to people's feet, nothing positive will change for Afro-Americans – in terms of the big picture. But it actually could also get even worse. Meaning that symbolism will always remain just symbolism and no more than this, if politicians won't draw the right conclusions.

  13. Black W's won't improve the living conditions of Afro-Americans. Same goes for the lives of Native Americans in reservations across the U.S. just because the Washington Redskins (finally) are going to change their utterly racist nickname/identity.


    Don't misunderstand me: these corrections are good and necessary. But they all will eventually be just a waste of time if the political system isn't ready to change itself – and the system that it has created over the course of decades.


    A black W inside a crest eventually won't mean a thing if out-of-control police brutality against the Afro-American minority can continue because politicians on both sides of the aisle refuse to demilitarize police, refuse to revise qualification and training for cops (deescalation instead of escalation tactics), refuse to acknowledge that there's a basic problem with racism and misuse of power among cops. As long as there are exclusively lip service or platitudes in politics, because too much money has been involved ever since, things can only get worse.

  14. 4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:


    See Filthy Frank, Mumkey Jones, some of Joe Rogan, LPOTL (especially Zebrowski), Crime in Sports/Small Town Murder, and Dick Masterson.


    I’d throw Maddox in here too, but he’s a dummy who sued his former podcast cohosts for what amounted to “mean words.”



    AKA JK Rowling’s attempts to be “progressive” while thinking that trans people are subhuman, meanwhile trying to play the victim card for the very deserved backlash. It’s like Orson Scott Card all over again, but made worse because of her works’ popularity.


    This also works well to describe just about anybody who has “rebranded” online without changing what a charlatan or exploitative dingus they are IRL.


    Well put, and nothing but the truth.

  15. 2 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

    Color scheme is great, but the wordmark and design do nothing for me. It’s so generic. Say what you will about the old design (I liked it, but I know that’s an unpopular opinion here) but at least it had character.


    Agree. The uniform looks clean – but also very boring. That typeface is mediocre at best.

  16. 1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

    Put me on the list as loving the DC ball...


    If feathers are retained, this seems like an opportunity to not have the little yellow spots on them.  That has always seemed to me like one of those “difficult to embroider” details.


    Thanks, OnWis97. I eventually decided to keep the yellow spots for my rebrand because I wanted to change as little as possible; except for the nickname/primary logo. I don't even know what these spots look like on merchandise, caps, shirts, etc.


    P.S.: Just looked at two New Era Caps; one having a pretty small-sized logo, the other one larger (normal scale), and the spots are looking pretty okay in both cases. Nowadays, this shouldn't be a problem anymore. At the end of the day, it's just spots.