• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Offensive Team Names

Cruz_del_Sur

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
3,017
Country Flag

Argentina

Club or Nation

CASI

If you can learn to read for once, its got nothing to do with the Chiefs name its the Native American imagery that has been used historically and even currently to racially discriminate against them. Those people have specifically asked for sports teams to stop using it.
No **** sherlock! Next time i'll bring the crayons. Maybe then you'll have a fair chance of grasping the point.
And arguing that just because someone feels offended the rest of the world should change accordingly is, well, brave. Someone feeling offended and something being offensive are not necessarily quite the same thing.


Now you're just being silly (or "Reductio Ad Absurdum" as it's otherwise known)
Over the years i've read some pretty ignorant things here. This has to be top 2. Easy.
That is a standard technique used and currently used at every level in mathematics and logic to prove/disprove congruence and consistency.
Calling it the equivalent of 'being silly' speaks volumes of you, not me.

The idea, which clearly eludes you, is that the principle should stand regardless of how far you stretch it (otherwise it is not a principle, by definition), and the further you stretch it the easier it is to gauge and/or expose its impact.
It's generally taught in any philosophy 101 course. Many math-related courses too. I could recommend a book or two. Maybe then you could avoid the nonsense.


But there are teams called the sharks and hurricanes and there isn’t the call for them to change their names by those groups…so the point kind of falls over
For now. But fair enough.
 

TRF_Olyy

English Arrogance
Staff member
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
100,007,557
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Sale

Someone feeling offended and something being offensive are not necessarily quite the same thing.
Who decides on what is and isn't offensive?
I'm sure there's a bunch of gammons who think the black and white minstrels were just a laugh
 

ncurd

Hall of Fame
TRF Legend
Joined
Feb 7, 2015
Messages
11,433
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

No **** sherlock! Next time i'll bring the crayons. Maybe then you'll have a fair chance of grasping the point.
And arguing that just because someone feels offended the rest of the world should change accordingly is, well, brave. Someone feeling offended and something being offensive are not necessarily quite the same thing.
Nah you need the crayons mate, "someone feeling offended" for christ sake its literally taught in schools this imagery was used to protray native americans as savage and needing of European education. If you don't think that stuff doesn't make it offensive then theres no ******* hope for you.
 

ncurd

Hall of Fame
TRF Legend
Joined
Feb 7, 2015
Messages
11,433
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

Who decides on what is and isn't offensive?
Its not rocket science (although apparently it might be a bit too hard for some people to grasp) anything is offensive if someone find its offensive. Not directing this at you.

The complicated factor is does that make everything offensive? Well yes evrything will offend everyone.

So lets ban everything! No lets actually take measured stock on the level of offence caused and the impact of removing that which causes offence.

Lets go for the bloody stupid shark attack example, a whole 10 people were killed by shark attacks globally last year. Even if they were offended by teams causing themselves the Sharks I think its fair to say the level of offence caused is not enough to worry about 10 people.

On the other hand with Native American imagery your talking about 2.9 million people in the USA and 1.6 million in Canada, there will be less because not every tribe ascribes to that imagery. We know the majority of them through polling data are offended by sports teams using that imagery. So I think we can safely say 2 million people are offended by sports teams doing this. Those involved in rugby have specifically called the Chiefs to stop using it. 20,000,000% more people are offended that those potentially by shark attacks. At which point its fair to start questioning whether the use of such imagery is fair as it clearly has an impact. Then we ask what difference does it make to the Chiefs to stop using such imagery and we realise the impact there is very little.

Going at another extreme end we wouldn't include imagery of the Holocaust as it would be clearly offensive. But a lesser genocide impacted upon Native Americans is fine because.....
 

Don't Skip Leg Day

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
3,030
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Northampton

Its not rocket science (although apparently it might be a bit too hard for some people to grasp) anything is offensive if someone find its offensive. Not directing this at you.

The complicated factor is does that make everything offensive? Well yes evrything will offend everyone.

So lets ban everything! No lets actually take measured stock on the level of offence caused and the impact of removing that which causes offence.

Lets go for the bloody stupid shark attack example, a whole 10 people were killed by shark attacks globally last year. Even if they were offended by teams causing themselves the Sharks I think its fair to say the level of offence caused is not enough to worry about 10 people.

On the other hand with Native American imagery your talking about 2.9 million people in the USA and 1.6 million in Canada, there will be less because not every tribe ascribes to that imagery. We know the majority of them through polling data are offended by sports teams using that imagery. So I think we can safely say 2 million people are offended by sports teams doing this. Those involved in rugby have specifically called the Chiefs to stop using it. 20,000,000% more people are offended that those potentially by shark attacks. At which point its fair to start questioning whether the use of such imagery is fair as it clearly has an impact. Then we ask what difference does it make to the Chiefs to stop using such imagery and we realise the impact there is very little.

Going at another extreme end we wouldn't include imagery of the Holocaust as it would be clearly offensive. But a lesser genocide impacted upon Native Americans is fine because.....
Not saying I don’t agree with you but to play devils advocate, there are millions of people (of a certain religious beliefs) who think most of western culture offensive. So should we ban certain adverts and things etc?

It’s a difficult thing because some things offend some people but they aren’t offensive in general. Some people take offensive at almost anything these days.

In this instance though, it’s less about offensive and more about stealing a culture which has angered them and in term be labelled offensive. So should Exeter be able to steal and use those images, yes if they weren’t stereotypes but since they are and with no links to native Americans in general you’d be hard pressed for anyone to say it’s not the right thing to do to give up the native marketing stuff.

Hope that doesn’t come across as disagreeing with you (as I’ve not meant to) but it’s funny how many things are being deemed offensive these days (although I get why this is).
 

ncurd

Hall of Fame
TRF Legend
Joined
Feb 7, 2015
Messages
11,433
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

It should noted its not just the stealing of their imagery its also the fact the stealing of it in this past was used to impart negative stereotypes of those people. Those same negative sterotypes are used in the Chiefs marketing.

I focused more on the numbers games but there's also the nature of the complaint which requires way more nuance as deciding what is and isn't a legitimate complaint.

Using the western culture example though it does have the issue. of level of impact of the change do we suddenly delete all of western culture just like do we delete all of middle eastern culture. I think its fair to say the impact greatly outweighs the fact some people just have live with the fact these things exist.

And I've tried to use examples with extreme logic points here for a reason its far more complex topic than is given credit by some (I don't think the Chiefs are a complex case the more and more you dig into it, its a mistake, nobody should be crucified but it definitely should stop).

Last year when CP2077 came out some of my very snowflakey friends to real exception to it for a multitude of reasons but none of it was really that extreme in offence given context and actual frequency in the game. However they were quite happy to be yelling about how much they liked an Ubisoft game, which if you look into the business envrioment of Ubisoft you'll know they caused actual harm to their employee's. When confronted about the harm of content of video game was a huge problem when compared actual harm caused to people and why one was okay but the other required constant posts not to buy something they didn't have a sensible answer. And think it get very complex we all know Kevin Spacey is a known shithead but how do we support films he made in the past which many many more creative people other than himself contributed towards. Although he personally is unlikely to be hired ever again.
 

Cruz_del_Sur

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
3,017
Country Flag

Argentina

Club or Nation

CASI

Who decides on what is and isn't offensive?
Bingo!
This is exactly what my view relies on. It is not simple. Whatever criteria you come up with, it wll have holes as there is no practical and objetive benchmark we can use. The sole fact that someone claims to be offended is not, nor should be enough. Intention, context, history, etc play a role.
Intention in particular, is key. At least it's one of the main criterias when i consider whether to be offended or not. Simplest example i can use to explain intention (and intention only) is the use of argie. If someone uses it because he is under the impression it is the equivalent to scot, aussie, brit, etc, i wont be offended. If i believe he knows what it entails, i might. I still believe he should be able to say that to me, but that is another matter.
So two [insert nationality here] call me the same word, in the same context with the same background and i feel offended by one and not the other. And the difference is the perceived intention i get from them (which begs the question, what if my reading of the intention is wrong?).

Again, this is not easy. And why limit it to to war bonnets? How about to every garnment? How about music? Why not food? Why limit it to the impact it has on one sense, why not use all senses?

Do italians feel offended when others eat pizza? No, for various reasons, but the main one is there not an iota of intention to offend italians. Some will scream: garments and food are not the same. I disagree, but then use a chullo hat instead. I've never, ever, seen a south american cry foul when seeing a white, cis, male european wearing a chullo.
Is there an intention to insult or negatively portray the one claiming to be offended by the ones issuing the message? I don't think so. I sincerely dont.

If you tell me "listen, there is a history between Exeter and native americans that, despite the lack of bad intentions wakes up old memories, problematic ones", kinda like what happens with zwarte piet in the netherlands, i could understand. But the portrayal by exeter aims at all positive things. The name is not insulting on itself either (i.e. redskins).



Its not rocket science (although apparently it might be a bit too hard for some people to grasp) anything is offensive if someone find its offensive.
Very well then. I find your posts, every single one of them, offensive.
Following your very own logic displayed in this thread, you should stop posting. Not a sinlge alphanumeric character from you anymore. You cornered yourself into this one.

If you do, you lose.
If you dont, you expose the hypocrisy of your argument, and lose, too.
It's not rocket sciency, indeed.

The argument you propose, that solely claiming being offended by someone, anyone according to you, is enough to command the other party not to express his/her views, resist no analysis whatsoever.
It's nothing short of ludicrous.

You feel offended? Then for crying out loud, be ******* offended. You are, for the lack of a better word, entitled to offend me. That is the entire bloody point.
Just like i feel when i read your nonsense, but you don't see me asking for you to be censored.
 

TRF_Olyy

English Arrogance
Staff member
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
100,007,557
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Sale

And why limit it to to war bonnets?
It's not, they're also not keen on the Tomahawk chop - a chant started a racist college fraternity who called themselves the scalp hunters

I've already said my piece on this already, anyway - it's not up to me to decide what is and isn't sacred/offensive to a culture I have no link to, all I can do is listen to the multiple organisations that have spoken out about it and learn.
 

Shimano

Academy Player
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
19
Not sure. I think that is a bit unfair. Anachronistic. Do you think many people would have considered exeter chiefs to be offensive back in 1999? Was there any intent whatsoever to offend or negatively discriminate with that choice of name? Is there now?

And regarding the alternatives, people will find a way to see some offense in anything you come up with. Shark attack victims, hurricane survivors, people who suffer from a particular type of colour blindness...
If the current state of affairs has taught us anything is that where there is a statement, any statement, there is someone claiming that statement to be offensive.


I dont believe all names are equally offensive, granted, but if you open that door there is no coming back.

Absolutely true this... its known as "manufactured poutrage".... the world is infested with SJWs looking for stuff to be poutraged about
 

TRF_Olyy

English Arrogance
Staff member
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
100,007,557
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Sale

Absolutely true this... its known as "manufactured poutrage".... the world is infested with SJWs looking for stuff to be poutraged about
So you think Native Americans aren't offended by misappropriation of their sacred imagery after undergoing attempted genocide by the race misappropriating them?
 

Which Tyler

International
TRF Legend
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
6,550
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

Oh, was @Cruz_del_Sur talking about Native Americans?


Hint: See the bit I bolded? Thats the bit I was replying to.
If you're referring to the bit you bolded, that Cruz was inventing things that nobody is outraged about, or could be outraged about; in order to be outraged at their outrage.
So it's not "manufactured outrage", it's "manufactured, manufactured outrage"
Nothing to do with Social Justice Warriors (who, you know, fight for Social Justice - about the only thing actually worth fighting about"; but people building strawmen and reductio ad absurdums in order to be outraged at the outrage that they only imagined.

But otherwise - yes, this thread is mostly about Native Americans.
 

Geordiefalcon

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
1,478
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Newcastle RU

Angry white men told me that Natives Americans were fine with it and it was just woke liberals getting offended on their behalf

Now I don't know what to think!
Well i guess im a dinosaur...as its all absurd.

Where do we go next...

Saracens will have to change their name.
Glasgow Warriors?
Maybe the WWF will complain about the cultural appropriation of Shark, Tiger, Falcon, Bear etc.

Cornish Pirates...well they have no link to Pirates.
We better check the history of Quins name.
.....
 

TRF_Olyy

English Arrogance
Staff member
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
100,007,557
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Sale

Except it's nothing to do with the name, and never has been, it's the imagery

No one is kicking off about the Waikato Chiefs, are they?
 

Latest posts

Top