Jump to content

London Rippers


Dexter Morgan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't know if there should be outrage. Though, when I first heard the name, I thought it had to do something about a river or rapids.

I didn't make any word associations with the nickname, before I saw the logo. But now that I've seen it, it makes any denials seem really ridiculous. What's Canadian about the logo, besides the leaf? It clearly evokes Jack the Ripper, when the team name is the Rippers. Honestly, "Magicians" might've worked with the same logo, but the combination of this logo and nickname makes the original intent pretty clear.

...Anyway,they should've gone John Stamos/Jesse & the Rippers, instead. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... So for the record, it's all right to name teams after animals that eat people like lions, tigers, bears, and sharks; and it is apparently ok to name them after natural disasters that kill people like hurricanes, lightning, fire, and earthquakes; and it's even viewed appropriate to name teams after people that kill other people such as raiders, vikings, braves, warriors, knights, and pirates. But to name a team after one person who killed people, that's where we draw the line? I guess the lesson is always to commit crimes in groups, eh?

This.

Get your panties out of a bunch, people. The actual Jack the Ripper was never identified, and the letter that spawned the nickname was thought to be a hoax. This isn't honoring any particular person like naming a team the Dahmers, or the Bundys, or the DC Snipers, as suggested in this thread. Jack the Ripper is a mysterious legend that happened over 100+ years ago. I like the name, and I like the logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... So for the record, it's all right to name teams after animals that eat people like lions, tigers, bears, and sharks; and it is apparently ok to name them after natural disasters that kill people like hurricanes, lightning, fire, and earthquakes; and it's even viewed appropriate to name teams after people that kill other people such as raiders, vikings, braves, warriors, knights, and pirates. But to name a team after one person who killed people, that's where we draw the line? I guess the lesson is always to commit crimes in groups, eh?

There's the "evil" aspect you're forgetting. Natural Disasters aren't evil, they just happen. Vikings, Braves weren't evil either, just a culture of people that the Anglo/whites considered "bad" in their racist way. Knights, Warriors are just names for "fighters" which again, aren't bad. Raiders and Pirates are really the only two that even get close to your argument and even then they were more interested in stealing your loot than anything else (at least in the romanticized version of them used today) and it's been over 200 years since the last "Caribbean" pirates were killed off with most of the well known ones being even older.

As for Family Guy and such using it, that's one thing, they're comedy shows that purposely push the edge of tasteful (and often go over it) for a laugh. They're not trying to market themselves as a brand based on it. This would be more akin to a new show called, Jack The Ripper which starred Jack the Ripper and focused on his home life between murders. It wouldn't fly, unless it was on Showtime and he was no longer killing innocent women but switched to killing other killers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... So for the record, it's all right to name teams after animals that eat people like lions, tigers, bears, and sharks; and it is apparently ok to name them after natural disasters that kill people like hurricanes, lightning, fire, and earthquakes; and it's even viewed appropriate to name teams after people that kill other people such as raiders, vikings, braves, warriors, knights, and pirates. But to name a team after one person who killed people, that's where we draw the line? I guess the lesson is always to commit crimes in groups, eh?

There's the "evil" aspect you're forgetting. Natural Disasters aren't evil, they just happen. Vikings, Braves weren't evil either, just a culture of people that the Anglo/whites considered "bad" in their racist way. Knights, Warriors are just names for "fighters" which again, aren't bad. Raiders and Pirates are really the only two that even get close to your argument and even then they were more interested in stealing your loot than anything else (at least in the romanticized version of them used today) and it's been over 200 years since the last "Caribbean" pirates were killed off with most of the well known ones being even older.

As for Family Guy and such using it, that's one thing, they're comedy shows that purposely push the edge of tasteful (and often go over it) for a laugh. They're not trying to market themselves as a brand based on it. This would be more akin to a new show called, Jack The Ripper which starred Jack the Ripper and focused on his home life between murders. It wouldn't fly, unless it was on Showtime and he was no longer killing innocent women but switched to killing other killers...

Counterpoint: Couldn't you argue that the main reason for choosing any name on that list would be for intimidation? Why don't we see teams named the Poodles, Breeze, or Nuns? Because they're not mean, not intimidating, have none of the attributes you want for your team to embody. Therefore, wouldn't the "evil" aspect only add to the intimidation factor?

Also, teams use plenty of "evil" names too: Devils, Demons, Ghosts, Phantoms, etc... should we stop using those too because they are "evil."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a design standpoint, the face of the perpetrator is poorly constructed as it took me awhile to confirm the facial features.

Thats kind of the point.

Anyway, its people bitching for the sake of bitching. I see no problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That (Jack The Ripper) is not our story," said Martin, when told about the reaction.

"Ripping a ball is used in baseball all the time."

Martin said the character's name is Diamond Jack, a frustrated hockey player who found he could "rip" the cover off baseballs. Despite his talent, teams grew weary of the expense of replacing balls so Diamond Jack decided to form his own team in London, Ontario.

"It's Phantom of the Opera meets baseball. He's a mysterious character who is somewhat edgy," said Martin.

Rippers1.jpg

i TOTALLY believe every word that dude says...diamond jack is CLEARLY a frustrated hockey player rather than an 18th century serial killer (/sarcasm)

the logo isn't bad, though...the nose is a bit misshapen...no doubt to further pronounce his former hockey days :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... So for the record, it's all right to name teams after animals that eat people like lions, tigers, bears, and sharks; and it is apparently ok to name them after natural disasters that kill people like hurricanes, lightning, fire, and earthquakes; and it's even viewed appropriate to name teams after people that kill other people such as raiders, vikings, braves, warriors, knights, and pirates. But to name a team after one person who killed people, that's where we draw the line? I guess the lesson is always to commit crimes in groups, eh?

There's the "evil" aspect you're forgetting. Natural Disasters aren't evil, they just happen. Vikings, Braves weren't evil either, just a culture of people that the Anglo/whites considered "bad" in their racist way. Knights, Warriors are just names for "fighters" which again, aren't bad. Raiders and Pirates are really the only two that even get close to your argument and even then they were more interested in stealing your loot than anything else (at least in the romanticized version of them used today) and it's been over 200 years since the last "Caribbean" pirates were killed off with most of the well known ones being even older.

As for Family Guy and such using it, that's one thing, they're comedy shows that purposely push the edge of tasteful (and often go over it) for a laugh. They're not trying to market themselves as a brand based on it. This would be more akin to a new show called, Jack The Ripper which starred Jack the Ripper and focused on his home life between murders. It wouldn't fly, unless it was on Showtime and he was no longer killing innocent women but switched to killing other killers...

Counterpoint: Couldn't you argue that the main reason for choosing any name on that list would be for intimidation? Why don't we see teams named the Poodles, Breeze, or Nuns? Because they're not mean, not intimidating, have none of the attributes you want for your team to embody. Therefore, wouldn't the "evil" aspect only add to the intimidation factor?

Also, teams use plenty of "evil" names too: Devils, Demons, Ghosts, Phantoms, etc... should we stop using those too because they are "evil."?

Again, none of those "evil" things you pointed out are real. Jack the Ripper was a real evil person who brutally murdered at minimum 5 women in cold blood and then got away with it. This would be akin to the SF Giants changing their names to the San Francisco Zodiacs... It wouldn't fly and we all know it for very good reasons not the least of which is it glorifies what he did. As for intimidation, there's intimidation, and there is completely classless and shameless attention whoring. This Ripper logo and identity has nothing to do with the former and everything to do with the latter. And then the compound the issue by being disingenuous and coming up with some cockamamie excuse for why they're using it. If you're going to be a classless attention whore, at least admit it.

And I'm saying all of this as someone who really isn't that offended as I'm not Canadian and I don't give a crap about irrelevant independent league baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... So for the record, it's all right to name teams after animals that eat people like lions, tigers, bears, and sharks; and it is apparently ok to name them after natural disasters that kill people like hurricanes, lightning, fire, and earthquakes; and it's even viewed appropriate to name teams after people that kill other people such as raiders, vikings, braves, warriors, knights, and pirates. But to name a team after one person who killed people, that's where we draw the line? I guess the lesson is always to commit crimes in groups, eh?

There's the "evil" aspect you're forgetting. Natural Disasters aren't evil, they just happen. Vikings, Braves weren't evil either, just a culture of people that the Anglo/whites considered "bad" in their racist way. Knights, Warriors are just names for "fighters" which again, aren't bad. Raiders and Pirates are really the only two that even get close to your argument and even then they were more interested in stealing your loot than anything else (at least in the romanticized version of them used today) and it's been over 200 years since the last "Caribbean" pirates were killed off with most of the well known ones being even older.

As for Family Guy and such using it, that's one thing, they're comedy shows that purposely push the edge of tasteful (and often go over it) for a laugh. They're not trying to market themselves as a brand based on it. This would be more akin to a new show called, Jack The Ripper which starred Jack the Ripper and focused on his home life between murders. It wouldn't fly, unless it was on Showtime and he was no longer killing innocent women but switched to killing other killers...

Counterpoint: Couldn't you argue that the main reason for choosing any name on that list would be for intimidation? Why don't we see teams named the Poodles, Breeze, or Nuns? Because they're not mean, not intimidating, have none of the attributes you want for your team to embody. Therefore, wouldn't the "evil" aspect only add to the intimidation factor?

Also, teams use plenty of "evil" names too: Devils, Demons, Ghosts, Phantoms, etc... should we stop using those too because they are "evil."?

Again, none of those "evil" things you pointed out are real. Jack the Ripper was a real evil person who brutally murdered at minimum 5 women in cold blood and then got away with it. This would be akin to the SF Giants changing their names to the San Francisco Zodiacs... It wouldn't fly and we all know it for very good reasons not the least of which is it glorifies what he did. As for intimidation, there's intimidation, and there is completely classless and shameless attention whoring. This Ripper logo and identity has nothing to do with the former and everything to do with the latter. And then the compound the issue by being disingenuous and coming up with some cockamamie excuse for why they're using it. If you're going to be a classless attention whore, at least admit it.

And I'm saying all of this as someone who really isn't that offended as I'm not Canadian and I don't give a crap about irrelevant independent league baseball.

I disagree (especially with the initial statement, but that's not relevant to the topic). I think you're trying to draw a line in the sand that can't be made. Somalian pirates killed four hostages earlier this year... are they not "evil" enough? Oh, wait, they're just looters according to you.

And who cares if it's in bad taste? Amusement parks and haunted houses go off the deep-end with maniacs with chainsaws, knives, and masks; but they're accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a design standpoint, the face of the perpetrator is poorly constructed as it took me awhile to confirm the facial features.

Thats kind of the point.

Anyway, its people bitching for the sake of bitching. I see no problem with it.

Aha! I'm enlightened now about the design elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... So for the record, it's all right to name teams after animals that eat people like lions, tigers, bears, and sharks; and it is apparently ok to name them after natural disasters that kill people like hurricanes, lightning, fire, and earthquakes; and it's even viewed appropriate to name teams after people that kill other people such as raiders, vikings, braves, warriors, knights, and pirates. But to name a team after one person who killed people, that's where we draw the line? I guess the lesson is always to commit crimes in groups, eh?

There's the "evil" aspect you're forgetting. Natural Disasters aren't evil, they just happen. Vikings, Braves weren't evil either, just a culture of people that the Anglo/whites considered "bad" in their racist way. Knights, Warriors are just names for "fighters" which again, aren't bad. Raiders and Pirates are really the only two that even get close to your argument and even then they were more interested in stealing your loot than anything else (at least in the romanticized version of them used today) and it's been over 200 years since the last "Caribbean" pirates were killed off with most of the well known ones being even older.

As for Family Guy and such using it, that's one thing, they're comedy shows that purposely push the edge of tasteful (and often go over it) for a laugh. They're not trying to market themselves as a brand based on it. This would be more akin to a new show called, Jack The Ripper which starred Jack the Ripper and focused on his home life between murders. It wouldn't fly, unless it was on Showtime and he was no longer killing innocent women but switched to killing other killers...

Counterpoint: Couldn't you argue that the main reason for choosing any name on that list would be for intimidation? Why don't we see teams named the Poodles, Breeze, or Nuns? Because they're not mean, not intimidating, have none of the attributes you want for your team to embody. Therefore, wouldn't the "evil" aspect only add to the intimidation factor?

Also, teams use plenty of "evil" names too: Devils, Demons, Ghosts, Phantoms, etc... should we stop using those too because they are "evil."?

Again, none of those "evil" things you pointed out are real. Jack the Ripper was a real evil person who brutally murdered at minimum 5 women in cold blood and then got away with it. This would be akin to the SF Giants changing their names to the San Francisco Zodiacs... It wouldn't fly and we all know it for very good reasons not the least of which is it glorifies what he did. As for intimidation, there's intimidation, and there is completely classless and shameless attention whoring. This Ripper logo and identity has nothing to do with the former and everything to do with the latter. And then the compound the issue by being disingenuous and coming up with some cockamamie excuse for why they're using it. If you're going to be a classless attention whore, at least admit it.

And I'm saying all of this as someone who really isn't that offended as I'm not Canadian and I don't give a crap about irrelevant independent league baseball.

I disagree (especially with the initial statement, but that's not relevant to the topic). I think you're trying to draw a line in the sand that can't be made. Somalian pirates killed four hostages earlier this year... are they not "evil" enough? Oh, wait, they're just looters according to you.

And who cares if it's in bad taste? Amusement parks and haunted houses go off the deep-end with maniacs with chainsaws, knives, and masks; but they're accepted.

Again, the Pirates don't allude to Somali Pirates, they allude to the romanticized version that trolled the Caribbean in the 1700's. If their mascot was an emaciated African guy with an RPG you can bet it would get as much flak if not more than this Ripper identity is getting. By the same token if the Rippers kept the name and changed their logo to a guy in hockey pads and helmet with a baseball bat (what their claiming is their mascot's backstory) this Ripper identity wouldn't be getting the flak it is getting. It's the confluence of the name and the obvious homage to the Whitechapel killer that is causing the outrage. I mean seriously, are they going to have a guy dressed up like Jack the Ripper running through their stands pretending to slit the throats of women in the crowd?

Amusement parks also don't feature real murderers generally speaking just Halloween style caricatures or at worst movie baddies, and more importantly don't feature real serial killers in their major marketing. You don't visit Zodiacland, Dahlmer World or Ripper-park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That (Jack The Ripper) is not our story," said Martin, when told about the reaction.

"Ripping a ball is used in baseball all the time."

Martin said the character's name is Diamond Jack, a frustrated hockey player who found he could "rip" the cover off baseballs. Despite his talent, teams grew weary of the expense of replacing balls so Diamond Jack decided to form his own team in London, Ontario.

"It's Phantom of the Opera meets baseball. He's a mysterious character who is somewhat edgy," said Martin.

Rippers1.jpg

i TOTALLY believe every word that dude says...diamond jack is CLEARLY a frustrated hockey player rather than an 18th century serial killer (/sarcasm)

the logo isn't bad, though...the nose is a bit misshapen...no doubt to further pronounce his former hockey days :)

The only reason I think they're denying it is because as I said earlier you cannot win a media war against a battered women's shelter. Sometimes its better to come off as an idiot then argue with a group who will always have the moral high ground on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.