Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Terthna
Professional Lurker
For the same reason the regressive left shouldn't have a say in the pronouns you're allowed to use. People have a right to be offensive; it's part and parcel of freedom of speech as a principle. If you're going to demand that speech which offends you should be silenced, then you don't believe in freedom of speech; period.
The Redskins.
They used a Blaclfeet drawn character. Mosy likely for permission for both the name and mascot from said tribe.
If your tribe has issues, bring it up with the other tribe.
And again, the team is not just named for the Blackfeet. If it was, and the tribe was cool with it, then that would be between them. But the team is not named for the Blackfeet - it is named "Redskins."
And?
Should everytime anything that says "Native American" get permission from EVERY SINGLE TRIBE in order to use it?
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I disagree.
If a team wants to use it, yeah, they should ask permission.
Why only a team? What makes them diffrent from a store?
Would you be cool with a national sports team using some other racial slur for a name with a mascot based on it, merchandising this name and mascot?
I would say a store should, too.
bintananth
behind a desk
I would say they shouldn't have so seek permission.
If they name themselves or their products after something people find offensive that's their perogative because almost no one is compelled to buy their products or make use of their services.
And I think they should since they are, in effect, representing that tribe through the use of their name. This doesn't even get into the cringe aspects of marketing that can lead to stores having a "Sioux-venier Shop" selling things like "H-Sioux-O" and "Sioux-per Dogs" and the like.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I literally just said I'd let them use me getting fucked in the ass with a cactus as their mascot; I may not like it, but I won't try to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
That's your prerogative (and frankly pretty cringe), and not something you can (or should) assert from others. I do mind. If some team somewhere decided they were going to use my name and image and didn't even bother to ask me about it, I'd be upset about that. I would get more upset when I found out they were using my name to make money off of, and even more upset when I saw the shit the fans were getting up to during the games.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Perhaps; but what gives you the right to assert that the team should stop, thereby denying everyone else their sports team iconography? Because being offended isn't going to fly with those who don't share your perspective.
Is slander/libel/defamation simply a matter of being offended?
Honestly the same could just as easily be said about people mad about the name change.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Should insulting someone, or depicting a racial stereotype, be elevated to the level of slander? I don't think it should.
You're not wrong; but that's where my absolutist stance on freedom of speech comes in. It's one of my core principles, that people should be allowed to say literally whatever they want without being censored, even things I find deeply insulting and/or offensive.
I could probably make that argument based on some of the shit I've seen going on in these stadiums. In any case it's more of an example to show that just yelling "free speech" for everything doesn't actually work, because as much of a free speech advocate as I am, I still recognize limits to it. I can also recognize that the subject under discussion does not represent a free speech argument, because this is not a case of private individuals being assholes, this is more along the lines of someone's name and image being used commercially without permission and acting entitled to do so. I brought up the example of Leonard Nimoy suing over the use of Spock's image specifically for that reason. This is also ignoring all the stupid arguments used to defend this bullshit, such as the "we're honoring them" defense.
Just being offended is one thing, it's another that you say you'd literally let some corporation use an image of you getting sodomized because "muh free speech."
You know, I never thought I'd find myself on the opposite side of such an argument, but, again, this is largely because I don't see this as a free speech issue.hyperspacewizard
Well-known member
So parody comics of religious figures should be illegal too? Because the comic artists is making money from a culture not his own?I could probably make that argument based on some of the shit I've seen going on in these stadiums. In any case it's more of an example to show that just yelling "free speech" for everything doesn't actually work, because as much of a free speech advocate as I am, I still recognize limits to it. I can also recognize that the subject under discussion does not represent a free speech argument, because this is not a case of private individuals being assholes, this is more along the lines of someone's name and image being used commercially without permission and acting entitled to do so. I brought up the example of Leonard Nimoy suing over the use of Spock's image specifically for that reason. This is also ignoring all the stupid arguments used to defend this bullshit, such as the "we're honoring them" defense.
Just being offended is one thing, it's another that you say you'd literally let some corporation use an image of you getting sodomized because "muh free speech."
No one should own symbols or names. Free speech is free and no one owns cultural symbols so stop with that argument