US Patent Office Cancels Redskins Football Team Trademark...

  • 165 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

...and it's a travesty.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Redskins, ruling that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language.

Credit ThinkProgress.org

What a load of crap. ThinkProgress.org should be renamed to something more accurate like, InventProblems.org.

I know how they could solve the issue anyways.

Just change the mascot.

#2 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

How exactly is this a travesty?

#3 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

How exactly is this a travesty?

It feels like a story you'd read on The Onion. It doesn't feel like real life.

#4 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

How exactly is this a travesty?

It feels like a story you'd read on The Onion. It doesn't feel like real life.

Now that you mention it The Onion did have a pretty good piece alluding to this controversy

#5 Posted by dave123321 (33414 posts) -

This should be a lovely thread

#6 Posted by jasean79 (2303 posts) -

Even though a 2004 poll of Native Americans determined that 90 percent aren't bothered by the name. My, how far we've come in 10 years' time.

#7 Posted by Flubbbs (2839 posts) -

over reaching government

#8 Edited by musicalmac (22694 posts) -
#9 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

over reaching government

How can you possibly describe the government getting rid of a government-enforced monopoly on the term "redskin" as government overreach?

#10 Posted by lostrib (31889 posts) -

Oh for the love of God...

#11 Posted by jasean79 (2303 posts) -

The real offensive part of the name is "Washington".

#12 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

Even though a 2004 poll of Native Americans determined that 90 percent aren't bothered by the name. My, how far we've come in 10 years' time.

It's really great that we can get riled up about a whole lot of nothing. What progress we can make by getting hot and bothered. A true social victory! What productive and meaningful causes we invest in.

#13 Posted by Flubbbs (2839 posts) -
@jasean79 said:

Even though a 2004 poll of Native Americans determined that 90 percent aren't bothered by the name. My, how far we've come in 10 years' time.

its mostly white liberals getting offended on behalf of indians

#14 Posted by The-Apostle (12112 posts) -

There is nothing offensive about the name.

#15 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

There is nothing offensive about the name.

lol

#16 Posted by dave123321 (33414 posts) -

Why are people so up in arms over people thinking an offensive team name should be changed out of common decency

#17 Posted by jasean79 (2303 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:
@jasean79 said:

Even though a 2004 poll of Native Americans determined that 90 percent aren't bothered by the name. My, how far we've come in 10 years' time.

its mostly white liberals getting offended on behalf of indians

Which is probably more offensive to native Americans (including their heritage in their political agenda) than the actual name of the football team.

#18 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

There is nothing offensive about the name.

It's part of a greater issue, where political correctness and hyper-sensitivity is held in higher regard than simple, basic common sense. It seems to boil down to a simple question -- why should anyone be happy when everyone could instead be equally miserable?

This whole thing is a joke.

#19 Posted by dave123321 (33414 posts) -

I find it funny that so much riledness is put forth to cling to a team name

#20 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6630 posts) -

They should change it to a red-skinned George Washington.

#21 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

There is nothing offensive about the name.

It's part of a greater issue, where political correctness and hyper-sensitivity is held in higher regard than simple, basic common sense. It seems to boil down to a simple question -- why should anyone be happy when everyone could instead be equally miserable?

This whole thing is a joke.

Why does the football team in Washington having a racist name make you happy?

#22 Edited by Flubbbs (2839 posts) -

can we just call them the Washington LGBT Scissoring Dildo Wankers? It would be widely accepted as politically correct and a step in the right direction

#23 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

Why does the football team in Washington having a racist name make you happy?

I knew that post would get your attention. Feel like I'm playing the fiddle.

I don't typically answer loaded questions, though.

#24 Posted by dave123321 (33414 posts) -

Maybe it feels them with joy to see people being less then positive over the racist stuff

#25 Posted by dave123321 (33414 posts) -

My apologies

I meant "than"

#26 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

Oh no! They finally followed their own procedure and cancelled a racist trademark name! This is outrageous!

#27 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

#28 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Why does the football team in Washington having a racist name make you happy?

I knew that post would get your attention. Feel like I'm playing the fiddle.

I don't typically answer loaded questions, though.

Oh you tease

#29 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

#30 Posted by jasean79 (2303 posts) -

What's next on the agenda for these libs...going after the New Orleans Saints name because non-Christians find it offensive?

#31 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

Oh you tease

If you've got a real question, and not a loaded or presumptuous one, I'll gladly answer you. ;)

#32 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

Oh you tease

If you've got a real question, and not a loaded or presumptuous one, I'll gladly answer you. ;)

'Twas only asking you to elaborate on what you said m8 ;)

#33 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

What system are you using to qualify equality on what terms are offensive?

#34 Posted by dave123321 (33414 posts) -

@jasean79: you need to lay off with the liberal stuff. Getting to sun levels here

#35 Posted by lostrib (31889 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

Who are you to decide what is offensive?

If 10 percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive, shouldn't it be changed and the patent dropped?

#36 Posted by jasean79 (2303 posts) -

@dave123321: Comparing me to him is extremely insulting! Apologize, now! lol

#37 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

'Twas only asking for you to elaborate on what you said m8 ;)

"Can you elaborate on that," and "Why does the football team in Washington having a racist name make you happy," are very different questions. In fact, one is reasonable and the other is both harmful and reinforces liberal stereotypes about presumptuous racism.

You have the power to choose to contribute meaningfully or to perpetuate stifling, socially damaging rhetoric.

#38 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

to you, none of witch are racist or offensive to you. they still portray white people just as poorly as the redskins did with their name, just because you dont find objection with one caricature but another does not make them different. equality under the law is not "it is ok to hate who i want to but not those i dont"

aside from braves that is exactly like the redskins.

#39 Edited by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@musicalmac said:

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

What system are you using to qualify equality on what terms are offensive?

Language. Some terms are inappropriate, particularly in an official setting; such terms include racial epithets (such as "redskin"), cursing ("the Washington Shit-Eaters"), sexualizations ("the Washington Bigdicks") and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, I'm not the one using the system; the U.S. Patent Office is.

#40 Edited by lostrib (31889 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

'Twas only asking for you to elaborate on what you said m8 ;)

"Can you elaborate on that," and "Why does the football team in Washington having a racist name make you happy," are very different questions. In fact, one is reasonable and the other is both harmful and reinforces liberal stereotypes about presumptuous racism.

You have the power to choose to contribute meaningfully or to perpetuate stifling, socially damaging rhetoric.

#41 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

Who are you to decide what is offensive?

If 10 percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive, shouldn't it be changed and the patent dropped?

Do ten percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive? Is "Yankee" on the same standing as "Redskin"? Would you be okay with a team called "The Washington Crackers"?

#42 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

Language. Some terms are inappropriate, particularly in an official setting; such terms include racial epithets (such as "redskin"), cursing ("the Washington Shit-Eaters"), sexualizations ("the Washington Bigdicks") and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, I'm not the one using the system; the U.S. Patent Office is.

You specifically said, "equal standing" and I was hoping to learn more about what that meant.

Why is it that the Redskins name has just now become a problem? What triggered this turn of events? Why would a team name themselves something that was meant to offend anyone? Do you think it was intentional to offend people?

#43 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17321 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

'Twas only asking for you to elaborate on what you said m8 ;)

"Can you elaborate on that," and "Why does the football team in Washington having a racist name make you happy," are very different questions. In fact, one is reasonable and the other is both harmful and reinforces liberal stereotypes about presumptuous racism.

You have the power to choose to contribute meaningfully or to perpetuate stifling, socially damaging rhetoric.

There was nothing unreasonable about the question I asked given your initial comment that I was responding to.

It'd be nice if you didn't hide behind the same "hyper-sensitivity" that you seem to feel so threatened by.

#44 Posted by jasean79 (2303 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

Yet organizations like "United Negro College Fund" and "NAACP" (colored people) still use terms that are frowned upon by blacks since the civil rights movement. So...how is that not offensive?

#45 Edited by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Do ten percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive? Is "Yankee" on the same standing as "Redskin"? Would you be okay with a team called "The Washington Crackers"?

Do you know what "cracker" means?

Edit: ...and or what it infers?

#46 Posted by lostrib (31889 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

Who are you to decide what is offensive?

If 10 percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive, shouldn't it be changed and the patent dropped?

Do ten percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive? Is "Yankee" on the same standing as "Redskin"? Would you be okay with a team called "The Washington Crackers"?

So if we found that 10 percent of white people surveyed found Yankees offensive, you would want to change it?

The point is that polls put it at about 10% of Native Americans find the term "Redskin" offensive

#47 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Language. Some terms are inappropriate, particularly in an official setting; such terms include racial epithets (such as "redskin"), cursing ("the Washington Shit-Eaters"), sexualizations ("the Washington Bigdicks") and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, I'm not the one using the system; the U.S. Patent Office is.

You specifically said, "equal standing" and I was hoping to learn more about what that meant.

Why is it that the Redskins name has just now become a problem? What triggered this turn of events? Why would a team name themselves something that was meant to offend anyone? Do you think it was intentional to offend people?

I don't think it was intentionally meant to be offensive; then again, neither was the name "redskin" in the first place. Nor was the term "Negro." Language evolves. As to what triggers it, figure the answer out to that and you can teach a sociology class.

#48 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Makhaidos said:

@lostrib said:

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

Who are you to decide what is offensive?

If 10 percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive, shouldn't it be changed and the patent dropped?

Do ten percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive? Is "Yankee" on the same standing as "Redskin"? Would you be okay with a team called "The Washington Crackers"?

So if we found that 10 percent of white people surveyed found Yankees offensive, you would want to change it?

The point is that polls put it at about 10% of Native Americans find the term "Redskin" offensive

1. Which polls?

2. Way to ignore my point.

3. Why does changing a racist team name bother you so much?

#49 Posted by musicalmac (22694 posts) -

There was nothing unreasonable about the question I asked given your initial comment that I was responding to.

It'd be nice if you didn't hide behind the same "hyper-sensitivity" that you seem to feel so threatened by.

I truly don't know what you're talking about. I suspect that perhaps you don't, either.

#50 Posted by Makhaidos (1611 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

Do ten percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive? Is "Yankee" on the same standing as "Redskin"? Would you be okay with a team called "The Washington Crackers"?

Do you know what "cracker" means?

Edit: ...and or what it infers?

Yes. Which is why it's an offensive term that should have no government trademark. Do you know what "redskin" means or infers?