Redskins Suing 5 Native Americans Offended By Team Name

[echelle]

[QUOTE=_Axel;46409792]Do you apply that train of thought to every other situation? Are you usually kinder to people who are part of minorities? Do you think it's fair to privilege people who belong to certain demographics?
If not, why should it be any different for sports logos?[/QUOTE]

It would depend on context, but I would certainly avoid joking with a hobo about how much less money he has, much more then I would avoid making fun of a rich guy about how much money he has. Its not a question of privileging people, its about not being an ass and anyone can always choose to do otherwise. I assume outlawing hate speech or similar extremes is not the thing in question here.

[AxeI]

[QUOTE=echelle;46409900]It would depend on context, but I would certainly avoid joking with a hobo about how much less money he has, much more then I would avoid making fun of a rich guy about how much money he has. Its not a question of privileging people, its about not being an ass and anyone can always choose to do otherwise. I assume outlawing hate speech or similar extremes is not the thing in question here.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between individuals and entire demographics. Some Natives may be quite rich and powerful, some whites are poor and homeless. If you saw a white man in rags and a Native in a tuxedo both begging on the street, which one would you help? Making insulting depictions of people is bad because it's insulting. Not because they are discriminated against. If you set up some kind of standard according to which it's fine to make fun of some cultures but not others, you're only adding to the existing divide.

[echelle]

[QUOTE=_Axel;46410109]There's a difference between individuals and entire demographics. Some Natives may be quite rich and powerful, some whites are poor and homeless. If you saw a white man in rags and a Native in a tuxedo both begging on the street, which one would you help? Making insulting depictions of people is bad because it's insulting. Not because they are discriminated against. If you set up some kind of standard according to which it's fine to make fun of some cultures but not others, you're only adding to the existing divide.[/QUOTE]

The difference between individual persons and individual demographic groups is primarily the scale of the actor one takes as being fundamental. If we are considering the individual poor white man or the individual rich native, then we will modulate our behavior based on their individual situation. This applies as much to wealth as to race, but more especially to their own individual stated preferences.

However, the redskins, as a term and as the name of a team, is referring to the individual demographic group. The name should then be considered as it affects the group and not a single individual. Obviously we can only find out what the group wants by listening to individual persons, and there probably won't be anything approaching a clear consensus. But lacking that preference we can still view our actions as being somewhat shaded by the condition of the group as a whole, insofar as our actions relate to that group.

The problem with making fun of an individual native person is that they may not like it. The problem with making fun of the group as a whole, in this sort of undirected public manner, has to be gauged through how it affects the group as a group. You will can decide on what these group effects actually are based on the individual native people you may know or what statistics seem relevant or whatever. The important thing is that this does affect the group and should be considered as such.

[Sgman91]

[QUOTE=echelle;46410386]The problem with making fun of an individual native person is that they may not like it. The problem with making fun of the group as a whole, in this sort of undirected public manner, has to be gauged through how it affects the group as a group. [/QUOTE]

You keep talking about being made fun of, but the redskins team isn't doing that, the redskins fans aren't doing that, and the populace at large isn't doing that when referring to the redskins team.

How exactly does "making fun of" have anything at all to do with the issue at hand?

[editline]4th November 2014[/editline]

Like I said earlier, and you might not agree with the qualities in question, but people pick team mascots/names based on perceived positive qualities, not negative qualities.

[echelle]

[QUOTE=sgman91;46410473]You keep talking about being made fun of, but the redskins team isn't doing that, the redskins fans aren't doing that, and the populace at large isn't doing that when referring to the redskins team.

How exactly does "making fun of" have anything at all to do with the issue at hand?

[editline]4th November 2014[/editline]

Like I said earlier, and you might not agree with the qualities in question, but people pick team mascots/names based on perceived positive qualities, not negative qualities.[/QUOTE]

I have been using "made fun of" when I have mostly meant negatively affecting the group in any manner, though with the sort of resultant harm that would be consistent with being made fun of. If actually no one cares about the name, then I don't know what the issue would be with keeping it. If only random people seem to care, then it would depend on how much they can be considered to speak for the affected groups (either fans or native peoples or whatever)