Quote:

---

Silly to some is not silly to all. You make think plenty of names are not offensive at all but there would actually be people offended by them.

---

Exactly. This is the "first case". You don't actually think it's offensive. And I'll repeat...you can have a discussion here and I can empathize with someone who doesn't think something is actually offensive.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this decision, it's the team's right to do whatever they want with the franchise they own. I'm just saying your bolded portion of the two options is an opinion and isn't really an option. Everyone falls into the second camp whether you agree or disagree with the decision.

---

You're not making sense. You are saying that everyone thinks it's offensive, but doesn't really care?

Quote:

---

Then why now and why only for "on the field use?" Did it just become offensive? Or is it only offensive if it's on a uniform worn by the team or a sign hanging in the stadium? Not offensive if it's on a team hat or shirt for sale to John Q. Public?

---

If the team were strong armed into it, they'd have to cease and desist all references to "indians", no? Why would the league strong arm them into something and then let them sell merchandise anyway? Oh, it's because baseball teams share revenue on merchandise.

So, exactly where is the strong arm again?

I was referring to the "it's literally not offensive" part. I don't think anything can be categorized as this in 2018.

diehard03 said:

---

If the team were strong armed into it, they'd have to cease and desist all references to "indians", no?

---

I haven't talked to the owner but I suspect rebranding the team as a condition to host an all-star game is a non starter.

Quote:

---

Why would the league strong arm them into something and then let them sell merchandise anyway? Oh, it's because baseball teams share revenue on merchandise.

---

So, they, on the own accord, recognize the logo is offensive and they should do away with it but can't completely disassociate it because the other owners are worried it would impact their share of Cleveland's merchandise revenue? You for real?

Quote:

---

If the team were strong armed into it, they'd have to cease and desist all references to "indians", no?

---

I don't mean this to say I think the league strong armed the team, but my understanding, which very well could be wrong, is that there is quite a bit more agreement within the Native American/Indian community that the logo is offensive than there is agreement about the name "Indians."

I think using "Indians" or the specific name of a tribe is a more complicated issue and how that use is perceived in those communities actually depends somewhat on how the name is portrayed...

...which leads back to the logo. And why, for example, FSU portraying the Seminoles as a great, strong peoples seems to bring less controversy as Cleveland portraying Indians as a sort of goofy looking cartoon.

It's surprising to me that this passed before the Redskins name change has.... which needs to happen.

tjholley17 said:

---

It's surprising to me that this passed before the Redskins name change has.... which needs to happen.

---

Why does it need to happen?

tjholley17 said:

---

It's surprising to me that this passed before the Redskins name change has.... which needs to happen.

---

Daniel Snyder's holding his ground and couldn't care less about the backlash. I think the Alex Smith trade yesterday was a convenient distraction from the Indians decision.

03_Aggie said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

It's surprising to me that this passed before the Redskins name change has.... which needs to happen.

---

Why does it need to happen?

---

it is admittedly a derogatory word for Native Americans...


according to the dictionary:

Redskin (red-skin) noun, Older Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
1.
a contemptuous term used to refer to a North American Indian.


if you need the definition of "contemptuous", that is "showing or expressing contempt or disdain; scornful; disrespectful"

And they traded a Ute

03_Aggie said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

It's surprising to me that this passed before the Redskins name change has.... which needs to happen.

---

Why does it need to happen?

---

Because literally worse than hitler

astros4545 said:

---

03_Aggie said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

It's surprising to me that this passed before the Redskins name change has.... which needs to happen.

---

Why does it need to happen?

---

Because literally worse than hitler

---

Man I had no idea where to stand on this issue but your straw man arguments are just so convincing.

https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/msespn-host-notre-dame-fighting-irish-leprechaun-offensive-banned/



These are my feelings.... Almost verbatim

Quote:

---

So, they, on the own accord, recognize the logo is offensive and they should do away with it but can't completely disassociate it because the other owners are worried it would impact their share of Cleveland's merchandise revenue? You for real?

---

You seem to be making the case that they werent strong armed for me. it's a pandering move by the league and team. There's no strong arming of anyone. Both sides want to do it.

Quote:

---

I was referring to the "it's literally not offensive" part. I don't think anything can be categorized as this in 2018.

---

You can take the "woe is me, everything's offensive" act elsewhere. Sane, rational people can have conversations around whether something is offensive or not. Insane, irrational people cannot.

Quote:

---

...which leads back to the logo. And why, for example, FSU portraying the Seminoles as a great, strong peoples seems to bring less controversy as Cleveland portraying Indians as a sort of goofy looking cartoon.

---

FSU had it's own issues, and was probably more proactive in suppressing the outrage than Cleveland was. But you're right, they don't have the issue of the optics of a goofy looking mascot.

Mr.Bond said:

---

https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/msespn-host-notre-dame-fighting-irish-leprechaun-offensive-banned/



These are my feelings.... Almost verbatim

---

Max Kellerman, who made the ridiculous ND argument, bit through an electrical clock cord when he was a kid, which shocked the **** out of him and explains why his mouth is scarred. Sometimes it's helpful to know the brain capacity of those on the other side and that many of them are as dumb as the cat in Christmas Vacation.

Quote:

---

These are my feelings.... Almost verbatim

---

I think it's a weak argument to need to have some sort of quorum, or critical mass number of "offended people" before something becomes legitimate. Either we are mocking a people group for our amusement or we aren't.

In the Irish's case, I can an argument for changing the logo. The team is called the "Fighting Irish" and their manifestation of that via a mascot is a stereotypical leprechaun in a stereotypical fighting stance. If they weren't called the Irish, there wouldn't be anything offensive about a mythical creature.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

So, they, on the own accord, recognize the logo is offensive and they should do away with it but can't completely disassociate it because the other owners are worried it would impact their share of Cleveland's merchandise revenue? You for real?

---

You seem to be making the case that they werent strong armed for me. it's a pandering move by the league and team. There's no strong arming of anyone. Both sides want to do it.

---

Why does the team want to do it? Outside of MLB requiring them to do it in order to host the 2019 Allstar festivities? It's not something new to for the league(s), NFL and NBA do it also, to leverage the hosting of special events to get franchises to agree to certain things they may otherwise not be willing to do.

I agree it's pandering by the league. They don't want to deal with the inevitable fabricated media drama that is sure to ramp up come game time.

Quote:

---

Why does the team want to do it?

---

Win the PR day. Sell more merchandise due to people rushing out to get old logo + people replacing their gear with new logo. They were getting the All Star game anyway.

Any narrative that they don't want to do it is just pandering to the people who really like wearing war paint and indian feathers at their tailgates. It's how they can win both sides.

diehard03 said:

---

Win the PR day. Sell more merchandise due to people rushing out to get old logo + people replacing their gear with new logo. They were getting the All Star game anyway.

---

Again, I ask why now if those are the reasons? Why not make the change last year? The year before, or even five years ago?

They aren't utilizing a new logo either. The C has been in use and I would assume anyone that likes it already owns apparel with it. They aren't introducing something all new, they are just paring it down.

Quote:

---

Again, I ask why now if those are the reasons? Why not make the change last year? The year before, or even five years ago?

They aren't utilizing a new logo either. The C has been in use and I would assume anyone that likes it already owns apparel with it. They aren't introducing something all new, they are just paring it down.

---

I think you're putting too much value on the timing. Maybe its' nothing more than maximizing the PR gain. Secondly, there's always a contingent of people that wait until something's official by the team to do something.