4 ms·

For some reason, liberals like to be offended on behalf of other groups.

by iterationx 12y ago

kaonashi 12y ago
I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.
  - thenmar 12y ago
    Um, it did come from a Native American group. Not that your opinion on whether or not something is an "actual movement" matters to anyone but yourself...
    - protomyth 12y ago
      You didn't actually read the document with the named-non-group plaintiffs.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        The plaintiffs are individual persons because of the standing issues related to disparagement claims), and ones just past the age of legal adulthood specifically to negate the laches defense raised in the immediately previous case on the same issue (the Harjo case, whose procedural history is discussed at length in the decision, and whose trial record was adopted wholesale in this case by mutual consent of the parties, because the substantive issues in this case are a subset of those in the Harjo case. So, while its nice that you read the named plaintiffs, it would probably help if you read the document beyond the names of the parties to get a clear understanding of what is actually going on.
        protomyth 12y ago
        I'm pretty well aware of what's going on, hard not to be where I'm standing. I didn't see the support I would want to see, but I wouldn't expect it given earlier actions.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    You might want to look at this brief (and, in particular, see who the amici offering it are) in support of the plaintiffs' position in the preceding case raising the same issues (the present case is a rehash of that case, organized by the same group, with younger named plaintiffs to avoid the laches defense that ended up being a problem for the earlier case): http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDohDiQUvSVlcVeXOGzqntVkEXTaEnFailZrpGfN_Amici-NCAI-et-al-10-16-09.pdf http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDo... Note that the first two listed are: Amicus National Congress of American Indians ("NCAI") was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national intertribal organization; it represents over 250 tribes, nations, pueblos, and Alaska Native villages with a combined enrollment of over 1.2 million. Amici Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are federally recognized Indian tribes that have adopted resolutions condemning the use of Indian names and mascots by sports teams.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  No, the pearl-clutchers have pretty much got that covered.
  - kaonashi 12y ago
    Interesting that you characterize basic human decency as an overreaction.
protomyth 12y ago
If they want to be offended maybe they should look at the crappy government health care (search: don't get sick after june), or the federal prosecutor who won't prosecute non-indians who steal on the reservation (even if the rez has video), look at the high unemployment rate after shutting down the defense contractor, or maybe take crimes against children with some seriousness. Being offended by names is way the heck down on the list. Oh, excuse me, all of those are failures of government and we cannot acknowledge that.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  The organized groups that have been involved in protest against disparaging use of Native American slurs or images by sports teams are often also (and often far more) concerned about other failures of government related to treatment of Native Americans (of course, government granted monopolies like registered trademarks are as much actions of government as prosecutorial decisions, so its inconsistent to label only the latter as a failure of government.) I mean, one of the organized groups that started protesting and lobbying against these sports uses the earliest was AIM [1], who, whatever else one might say, certainly cannot fairly be described as not interested in addressing "failures of government" affecting Native Americans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement
  - protomyth 12y ago
    AIM isn't behind this and I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. It would be hard to actually live on a reservation and not know about AIM or its history.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > AIM isn't behind this AIM's history of involvement on this issue was among the pieces of evidence cited in the decision supporting the conclusion of fact that the marks at issue were disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time registered. > I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. There clearly less active now than in the past, e.g., their most recent press release on their website is October 22, 2013 -- concerning the very issue here, interestingly enough.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jotato 12y ago
haha! best comment I have read this morning. :)

For some reason, liberals like to be offended on behalf of other groups.

kaonashi 12y ago

I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.

protomyth 12y ago
Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.
- thenmar 12y ago
  Um, it did come from a Native American group. Not that your opinion on whether or not something is an "actual movement" matters to anyone but yourself...
  - protomyth 12y ago
    You didn't actually read the document with the named-non-group plaintiffs.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      The plaintiffs are individual persons because of the standing issues related to disparagement claims), and ones just past the age of legal adulthood specifically to negate the laches defense raised in the immediately previous case on the same issue (the Harjo case, whose procedural history is discussed at length in the decision, and whose trial record was adopted wholesale in this case by mutual consent of the parties, because the substantive issues in this case are a subset of those in the Harjo case. So, while its nice that you read the named plaintiffs, it would probably help if you read the document beyond the names of the parties to get a clear understanding of what is actually going on.
      - protomyth 12y ago
        I'm pretty well aware of what's going on, hard not to be where I'm standing. I didn't see the support I would want to see, but I wouldn't expect it given earlier actions.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  You might want to look at this brief (and, in particular, see who the amici offering it are) in support of the plaintiffs' position in the preceding case raising the same issues (the present case is a rehash of that case, organized by the same group, with younger named plaintiffs to avoid the laches defense that ended up being a problem for the earlier case): http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDohDiQUvSVlcVeXOGzqntVkEXTaEnFailZrpGfN_Amici-NCAI-et-al-10-16-09.pdf http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDo... Note that the first two listed are: Amicus National Congress of American Indians ("NCAI") was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national intertribal organization; it represents over 250 tribes, nations, pueblos, and Alaska Native villages with a combined enrollment of over 1.2 million. Amici Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are federally recognized Indian tribes that have adopted resolutions condemning the use of Indian names and mascots by sports teams.
CamperBob2 12y ago
No, the pearl-clutchers have pretty much got that covered.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  Interesting that you characterize basic human decency as an overreaction.

protomyth 12y ago

If they want to be offended maybe they should look at the crappy government health care (search: don't get sick after june), or the federal prosecutor who won't prosecute non-indians who steal on the reservation (even if the rez has video), look at the high unemployment rate after shutting down the defense contractor, or maybe take crimes against children with some seriousness. Being offended by names is way the heck down on the list. Oh, excuse me, all of those are failures of government and we cannot acknowledge that.

dragonwriter 12y ago
The organized groups that have been involved in protest against disparaging use of Native American slurs or images by sports teams are often also (and often far more) concerned about other failures of government related to treatment of Native Americans (of course, government granted monopolies like registered trademarks are as much actions of government as prosecutorial decisions, so its inconsistent to label only the latter as a failure of government.) I mean, one of the organized groups that started protesting and lobbying against these sports uses the earliest was AIM [1], who, whatever else one might say, certainly cannot fairly be described as not interested in addressing "failures of government" affecting Native Americans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement
- protomyth 12y ago
  AIM isn't behind this and I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. It would be hard to actually live on a reservation and not know about AIM or its history.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > AIM isn't behind this AIM's history of involvement on this issue was among the pieces of evidence cited in the decision supporting the conclusion of fact that the marks at issue were disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time registered. > I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them. There clearly less active now than in the past, e.g., their most recent press release on their website is October 22, 2013 -- concerning the very issue here, interestingly enough.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jotato 12y ago

haha! best comment I have read this morning. :)