{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/19/2014 2:12:43 PM
1
Depends on the situation.
Are you getting discriminated against at work because of your color and don't have the same privileges as everyone else? Action needs to be taken then.
Are you black and walking down the street and some white dude calls you the n word, should you respond in violence or equal retaliation? No. Get the -blam!- over it. There are stupid people out there. Words from another person should be like water on a ducks back to you. Responding to every single "racist" remark out there is only feeding the problem. It makes people more angry and stirs shit up. It's not "justice". If you ignore problems like this then it should die out more quickly.
The latter is more related to the incident in the OP. It's a word being used. It isn't like they are keeping native Americans from playing football on their team.
English
-
"Redskin" is the equivalent of N****R for Native Americans. Its not a descriptive, its a deragotory, and always has been. It's NEVER been just a descriptive. It literally is the same as having the Alabama N****rs, the Los Angeles B***ers or the New York Ki**s. Its been OK to use the name because Native Americans are the smallest minority. There is no lobby-group or similar interest group for them. Had there been more NA's, then the name would have been changed long ago.
-
[quote]"Redskin" is the equivalent of N****R for Native Americans.[/quote] Considering there is no way to gauge words for "racist units", this is merely an opinion that you have. [quote]Its not a descriptive, its a deragotory, and always has been. It's NEVER been just a descriptive.[/quote] Never been? Were you there when this word originated? Was anyone alive today there? Were you there every single time this word was used to decide whether or not it was being used as a description vs. derogatory? No? Well then that's a bold statement. There's a lot of worlds out there, neutral words, that have bad stigmas attached to them. When in reality, most of the words should not be considered inherently bad. What should be looked at is how they are used. For instance, black people call their homies the n word all the time. What's the difference? The way they are using it. It's the exact same word for crying out loud. If the word was inherently bad, they wouldn't be calling their friends n words. [quote]It literally is the same as having the Alabama N****rs, the Los Angeles B***ers or the New York Ki**s. Its been OK to use the name because Native Americans are the smallest minority. There is no lobby-group or similar interest group for them. Had there been more NA's, then the name would have been changed long ago.[/quote] No it's not, because those words have been blown way out of proportion since then, whereas "redskin" hasn't. And for good reason. You start blowing it out of proportion now, the native Americans are only going to receive way more hate and run the risk of hearing the word "redskin" in a derogatory manner because there will actually be hate behind it. This just simply is not a good idea.
-
[quote]You are as wrong as one can be. Look it up. I won't be doing your homework for you.[/quote] Top kek. [quote]But, you know what? Your racism won't matter. The name will change, and you will just have to deal.[/quote] 1) I would like for you to show me where I'm being racist. 2) I won't have to deal with anything. I never once expressed any love/like for this team. I don't even like RG3. So the name change doesn't mean shit to me. MY point was that alleged "racism" bit here is being fought with fire. At which point, racism only grows stronger, as we see clearly in history that prohibition only makes matters worse. So you can take your over sensitive ass home.
