BMcP

Established Members
  • Content Count

    16,172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Posts posted by BMcP


  1. 22 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

    Because that wasn't what they surveyed.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Annenberg_Election_Survey

    The NAES 2004 study was a study into campaign dynamics, and surveyed the entire population. We can only guess as to how this question popped up in that particular survey.

    Q24: how do you feel about the ad just brought out by the candidate?

    Q25: How about them Redskins, eh?

     

    Thanks, Boudewijn.  I’m always willing to be educated - and I’ve discovererd you are good at doing so when it comes to my own country.

    • Like 1

  2. 16 minutes ago, hoppychokes said:

    My point is that you can’t use that survey to justify an ethnic group being okay with a slur, when it is so flawed in actually polling that ethnic group.

    I’m not offering any opinions about the potential flaws in survey-taking; I’m not familiar with proper surveying practice.  But I assume Annenburg has some expertise when it comes to polling people.


  3. 41 minutes ago, hoppychokes said:

    Weren’t the natives in those polls allowed to self identify?

    Remembered this segment

     

    I’m not sure it would even be constitutional to conduct a survey in which people were forced to provide proof of their ethnicity.  I don’t think it’s a question of “allowing” people to do anything.

     

    That said, see my post above: I’m fully in favor of pro leagues’ placing restrictions on the range of team name ideas permissible.


  4. I don’t see why Goodell - and all pro sports leagues for that matter - don’t just institute rules governing team names: for example, only animals and objects are permissible team names.  It would put a swift end to any controversy surrounding the subject.  Or abstract nouns.


  5. I don’t want to speak on anyone else’s behalf - and I’m not Native American (though I have Native friends) - but in all my years, I’ve never heard or seen anyone use the term “Redskin” in a derogatory way to refer to a Native American.  The fact that most Natives polled either consider it an honorific or aren’t bothered by it (multiple school teams on reservations have been named the “Redskins” of their own volition) leads me to believe it isn’t widely considered derogatory by the segment of the population potentially offended.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  6. Thanks for chiming in - I have no reason to speak, but using a horse named “Renegade” and a flaming spear (Note: they never used spears) seems a bit gross.  Thanks for speaking up and realize we’re all saying this out of a desire to understand more and love more 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  7. 1 minute ago, Evincar said:

     

    Hightower had two big games in 2015. Its kind of a stretch to say he won leagues.

    Anyways I think Freeman is cooked. I dont think he has any value regardless of what team he lands on.

    Those games happened to come at a critical time for fantasy purposes - regardless, it does nothing to clarify why Hightower was brought up in response to a question about “top-ten” finishers.


  8. 44 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

    As an outsider I have little problem with Chiefs or Indians, or Seminoles (which is sanctioned by the actual Seminoles) but Redskins just absolutely has to go in 2020. That's just 50 years too late.

    As an outsider, who has no potential of being offended by said names, why do you believe your opinion on the matter relevant?

    Not trying to be flippant, just asking honestly.

    (BTW: If you think the FSU “Seminoles” is not considered offensive by many Seminoles, particularly those populating Oklahoma, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.)


  9. 3 minutes ago, DerrickHenrysCleats said:

     

    Sounds perfect for my bench

    I’ll tell you what will actually happen: he will be traded upwards of about 75 times in “dealz” over the next month or two and end up back on your roster by the time the season starts.  You know it’s inevitable. 😉


  10. 21 minutes ago, joshua18 said:


    Because he was the RB1 when it mattered most and won titles for many owners. The height of zero RB (and the last time it was really relevant at the high-stakes level). 
     

    This is fantasy football. Many seemingly outlandish occurrences have become commonplace.

    Oh I know - I rode him to glory that year.  But I thought the question concerned RBs who ended up having a top-10 season - not the Boston Scotts and C.J. Spillers of the world.


  11. 36 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

    Browns 

    Warriors (obviously offensive to veterans)

    76ers (history is stupid)

    Angels (offensive to religious people)

    Vikings (they also killed and stuff)

     

     

     

     

    Good ones, though I did include the Browns.

    Good call on Angels - clearly the Saints needs to go as well - offensive to people of non-Christian religious denominations and atheists.


  12. Bold prediction: the following teams are pressured into changing their name by end-of-year 2020:

    Redskins

    Chiefs

    Indians

    Braves

    Raiders/Buccaneers/Pirates (honoring a ruthless band of rapists, murderous thieves)

    Giants (offensive to people of small stature)

    Jets (“jet” meaning “black” and therefore offensive to people of black skin color)

    Browns/Reds (again, references to skin tone)

    Yankees (offensive to northeasterners)

    Bengals (offensive to a particular ethnicity)

    Cowboys (offensive to Native Americans as their ancestral foes)

    Did I miss any?

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1