The Onion - Going too far?

[Jerry_L]

Washington Clusterfucks

Winner! Can't wait to see the new team logo!

[Hot Ptah]

Here's the solution, which will please everyone:

http://nesn.com/2013/10/peta-suggests-washington-redskins-keep-controversial-name-change-mascot-to-potato/

[David Ayers]

It doesn't matter what the Onion's rationale is. Even on their implied terms they are saying there can be legitimate reasons to use offensive racial epithets. But all they are doing is using hate speech and people have to stop. It's just manners, really. Why defend it as if it were the product of genius? And a deeper question here about why people look for an excuse to express antisemitism. Try to be nice. Just stop.

[medjuck]

It doesn't matter what the Onion's rationale is. Even on their implied terms they are saying there can be legitimate reasons to use offensive racial epithets. But all they are doing is using hate speech and people have to stop. It's just manners, really. Why defend it as if it were the product of genius? And a deeper question here about why people look for an excuse to express antisemitism. Try to be nice. Just stop.

I thought the article was clever and I'm a Jew. The point of the article is that "Redskins"is as offensive as "Kike". There is no joke if you don't think "kike" is offensive.

[Big Beat Steve]

Can we at least agree that neither Charlie Barnet (who also recorded "Redskin Rhumba", BTW) nor Jim Flora nor those who happen to have reissued this LP with the original Flora cover will be excommunicated?

[TedR]

Washington Clusterfucks

Winner! Can't wait to see the new team logo!

Isn't that name already taken?

[Jerry_L]

Here's the solution, which will please everyone:

http://nesn.com/2013/10/peta-suggests-washington-redskins-keep-controversial-name-change-mascot-to-potato/

I wouldn't doubt that someone will still find cause to be offended by this, but I think it's a good idea. It's just a goddamned potato, get over it!

PETA took the high road, the Onion took the low road. The very low road.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Jerry_L

[Tim McG]

Once you enter the world of "the Onion" you are up for grabs.

Agreed.

I mean, we can't sanitize everything. Look how watered down Saturday Night Live is compared to the 70s and 80s. Like everything has to be politically correct these days?

Edited October 25, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[Noj]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2QRHDz1sBI

[Larry Kart]

In the UK the Onion could be prosecuted for racism, correctly in my book.

Really? You think it's correct to prosecute a satirical publication for racism?

Yes. Here the question of interpretation lies in the offence given. In this article, an individual is slurred with racial epithets. That offends Jews, not just him. Otherwise the excuse for racism becomes 'oh I was only joking'.

In any case, what happens in a joke? This joke focalises racial aggression. There is no point in dignifying it by analysing its layers. In my book this is actually classic anti-semitism. The message to Jews is: look, you have to put up with this language, one of your kind has stepped out of line - watch out, there's plenty more where this came from.

That's completely absurd. This joke does the opposite of focalize racial aggression and the only way to figure that out is to understand the context -that is, to analyze its layers.

The whole point of this joke is to lampoon the patronizing attitude of most Americans (and particularly Dan Snyder) who keep saying that "Redskins" is not racially offensive even though this is the easiest and cheapest opinion for those people (since they are not themselves Indians) to have. It does this by setting up an analogous example that's OBVIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY racially offensive to point out that these same people would never stand for it if their ethnicities were caricatured like this. It has nothing to do with making Jews "put up with this language" and everything to do with illustrating the ways in which powerful people make others put up with the same kind of language every day.

Well put.

[mjzee]

Once you enter the world of "the Onion" you are up for grabs.

Agreed.

I mean, we can't sanitize everything. Look how watered down Saturday Night Live is compared to the 70s and 80s. Like everything has to be politically correct these days?

Does that also apply to the name of the football team?

Actually, I'll answer my own question. While I don't think much of anyone really cares about the Redskins name or is offended by it, identity politics is pretty powerful in this country. There's an incentive for the grievance activists to keep up the pressure (higher media profile, more donations), and so the name will probably wind up changing. Whether that's a good thing or not, who knows; time marches on. I keep thinking of the movie "Ghost World." Those who have seen it will know what I'm referring to. Was it really such a bad thing for the fast food chain to change their name and logo? Could they really have retained it, and why would that be important to them? You count the cards and you see how this will end.

Edited October 25, 2013 by mjzee

[David Ayers]

Once you enter the world of "the Onion" you are up for grabs.

Agreed.

I mean, we can't sanitize everything. Look how watered down Saturday Night Live is compared to the 70s and 80s. Like everything has to be politically correct these days?

Does that also apply to the name of the football team?

I made the same point in one of my posts.

In the meantime the callow logic of the Onion hurls around hate speech and Jews are supposed to suck it up just like the Native Americans are supposed to put up with 'Redskins'.

And here, supposedly liberal people defend the use of this speech instead of concluding, more reasonably, that as it is profoundly offensive to some it should not be used. Be nice. It won't hurt.

[Big Wheel]

In the meantime the callow logic of Jonathan Swift hurls around suggestions of child-cannibalism and the Irish are supposed to suck it up just like they were supposed to put up with all other British indignities.

And here, supposedly liberal people defend the use of this suggestion instead of concluding, more reasonably, that as it is profoundly offensive to some it should not be used. Be nice. It won't hurt.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Big Wheel

[David Ayers]

And the parallel with antisemitic hate speech is? I couldn't defend it with the same pride that some here do. Be nice, the world will get nicer.

[David Ayers]

Seems they're about to be renamed the Bravehearts, anyway. Which just leaves us with the issue of antisemitism.

[Blue Train]

In the UK the Onion could be prosecuted for racism, correctly in my book.

Really? You think it's correct to prosecute a satirical publication for racism?

Yes. Here the question of interpretation lies in the offence given. In this article, an individual is slurred with racial epithets. That offends Jews, not just him. Otherwise the excuse for racism becomes 'oh I was only joking'.

In any case, what happens in a joke? This joke focalises racial aggression. There is no point in dignifying it by analysing its layers. In my book this is actually classic anti-semitism. The message to Jews is: look, you have to put up with this language, one of your kind has stepped out of line - watch out, there's plenty more where this came from.

That's completely absurd. This joke does the opposite of focalize racial aggression and the only way to figure that out is to understand the context -that is, to analyze its layers.

The whole point of this joke is to lampoon the patronizing attitude of most Americans (and particularly Dan Snyder) who keep saying that "Redskins" is not racially offensive even though this is the easiest and cheapest opinion for those people (since they are not themselves Indians) to have. It does this by setting up an analogous example that's OBVIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY racially offensive to point out that these same people would never stand for it if their ethnicities were caricatured like this. It has nothing to do with making Jews "put up with this language" and everything to do with illustrating the ways in which powerful people make others put up with the same kind of language every day.

Well put.

Seconded!....especially when you take into account Synder's previous crying wolf over antisemitism when there wasn't any. I would comment on David Ayers' comments, but this is now getting to the point of a subject that belongs in a forum which doesn't exist on here anymore.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Blue Train

[Jim Alfredson]

What if the guy/gal who wrote that Onion satire piece is Jewish?

[Blue Train]

Seems they're about to be renamed the Bravehearts, anyway. Which just leaves us with the issue of antisemitism.

Actually, no they're not. They already denied they're involved.

[Larry Kart]

What if the guy/gal who wrote that Onion satire piece is Jewish?

As we all know, they're the worst kind.

[Blue Train]

What if the guy/gal who wrote that Onion satire piece is Jewish?

Self-hating is the usual response.

P.S. If anyone doesn't know there actually is a case (Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc.) before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the trademark. The ruling will probably happen in 2014.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/us-world/nfl-redskins-name-registration-faces-legal-challenges-100813

Edited October 26, 2013 by Blue Train

[Chuck Nessa]

No one comes out "clean". Remember that and move on.

[king ubu]

And here, supposedly liberal people defend the use of this speech instead of concluding, more reasonably, that as it is profoundly offensive to some it should not be used. Be nice. It won't hurt.

... been there plenty o'times and it still hurts our european minds and always will, I'm afraid - huge cultural gap there.

[Tim McG]

Once you enter the world of "the Onion" you are up for grabs.

Agreed.

I mean, we can't sanitize everything. Look how watered down Saturday Night Live is compared to the 70s and 80s. Like everything has to be politically correct these days?

Does that also apply to the name of the football team?

I made the same point in one of my posts.

In the meantime the callow logic of the Onion hurls around hate speech and Jews are supposed to suck it up just like the Native Americans are supposed to put up with 'Redskins'.

And here, supposedly liberal people defend the use of this speech instead of concluding, more reasonably, that as it is profoundly offensive to some it should not be used. Be nice. It won't hurt.

I think the point they were making was that stuff isn't OK...no matter who is involved.

TBH, I wish we could go back and change all the unfortunate team nicknames, but it does not seem likely or even plausible given the sheer weight in numbers of American Indian team names from grade school through junior high, high school into college and on to the pros.

The secondary issue is nobody gets torqued out of shape when the Fighting Irish ethnic slander is tossed around. It denotes that an entire group of people are given to violence and drinking.

I think at some point we need to ask: Were those nicknames the result of malice or an honest, if not misguided, attempt to promote an image of strength and perseverance?

OTOH, I totally get the anger and frustration these nicknames cause people. But, what is the solution? Do we force every single team on the continent to change their mascots? And who gets to decide which nickname is more reprehensible than another? My old HS's mascot is the Red Devils. Can you imagine the uproar from the conservative "christian" right over that one? It is, if I may, the proverbial Pandora's Box.

Edited October 26, 2013 by GoodSpeak

[ejp626]

My old HS's mascot is the Red Devils. Can you imagine the uproar from the conservative "christian" right over that one? It is, if I may, the proverbial Pandora's Box.

My HS had a fairly safe mascot -- the Mustangs. Which always led to "hilarity" when someone would dump on old car on the HS grounds during Homecoming week.

But the HS I taught at for a couple of years had the Red Raiders, with obligatory Indian head logo. The logo wasn't particular demeaning, but still felt icky to me. And of course, the idea that we should be celebrating those Indians who "raided" white settlements is fraught on all kinds of levels. Certainly, the name had essentially nothing to do at all with the school history (other than the whole city was probably once Native American hunting territory...) The student population is predominantly Portuguese immigrants, followed by African-American, Puerto Rican and some remaining Italians (definitely an odd mix). The principal was asked every couple of years about changing the name, even to just The Raiders, but so far has not felt the need to do so. Maybe some day...

Edited October 26, 2013 by ejp626

[Tim McG]

My old HS's mascot is the Red Devils. Can you imagine the uproar from the conservative "christian" right over that one? It is, if I may, the proverbial Pandora's Box.

My HS had a fairly safe mascot -- the Mustangs. Which always led to "hilarity" when someone would dump on old car on the HS grounds during Homecoming week.

But the HS I taught at for a couple of years had the Red Raiders, with obligatory Indian head logo. The logo wasn't particular demeaning, but still felt icky to me. And of course, the idea that we should be celebrating those Indians who "raided" white settlements is fraught on all kinds of levels. Certainly, the name had essentially nothing to do at all with the school history (other than the whole city was probably once Native American hunting territory...) The student population is predominantly Portuguese immigrants, followed by African-American, Puerto Rican and some remaining Italians (definitely an odd mix). The principal was asked every couple of years about changing the name, even to just The Raiders, but so far has not felt the need to do so. Maybe some day...

Makes sense.

I just think we are placing far too much emphasis on the names of mascots, places, streets and whatnots to the point of becoming a parody of what is truly racially and culturally relevant and non-judgemental/racist.