Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
brah

WashPost Exposes 'Daily Show' Lying Ambush (Merged)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Quickbeam

It was an awesome segment.

 

Jon Stewart and the guy who did the interviews spent a lot of time describing the controversy about the segment and presenting the complaint made by the interviewees who defend the Redskins name. The complaint was hyped by the Washington Post. Those interviewees acknowledged that they wouldn't hesitate to continue supporting the team if the name changed; they also acknowledged that the name has been changed in the past and many other aspects of the franchise (the location, the song, the owner etc) have been changed MULTIPLE times. There is nothing sacred about this damned silly name.

 

The segment did not display any confrontational scenes involving the Redskins name aficionados and the native American activists. The segment did not humiliate the Redskins name defenders. It gave them the chance to state their views. It acknowledged their complaint about the 'debate' part of the segment.

 

I liked the point that the NFL mascots are either animals or references to native Americans. That does rather puncture the illusion that these names are "honouring" native Americans. To be considered on a par with animals is not a compliment. It is patronizing.

 

It was funny to see the footage of fans at the game behaving like drunken idiots and wearing those feather hats. Their faces had to be pixellated because they got defensive while they were being filmed. It's appropriate that their faces were blurred like criminals because they were committing offences against good taste. FFS - playing up the whole 'noble savage' stereotype is meant to be an homage to First Peoples? Give.Me.A.Break.

 

There's an incisive native American perspective on the segment here.

Edited by Quickbeam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

It was an awesome segment.

 

Jon Stewart and the guy who did the interviews spent a lot of time describing the controversy about the segment and presenting the complaint made by the interviewees who defend the Redskins name. The complaint was hyped by the Washington Post. Those interviewees acknowledged that they wouldn't hesitate to continue supporting the team if the name changed; they also acknowledged that the name has been changed in the past and many other aspects of the franchise (the location, the song, the owner etc) have been changed MULTIPLE times. There is nothing sacred about this damned silly name.

 

The segment did not display any confrontational scenes involving the Redskins name aficionados and the native American activists. The segment did not humiliate the Redskins name defenders. It gave them the chance to state their views. It acknowledged their complaint about the 'debate' part of the segment.

 

I liked the point that the NFL mascots are either animals or references to native Americans. That does rather puncture the illusion that these names are "honouring" native Americans. To be considered on a par with animals is not a compliment. It is patronizing.

 

It was funny to see the footage of fans at the game behaving like drunken idiots and wearing those feather hats. Their faces had to be pixellated because they got defensive while they were being filmed. It's appropriate that their faces were blurred like criminals because they were committing offences against good taste. FFS - playing up the whole 'noble savage' stereotype is meant to be an homage to First Peoples? Give.Me.A.Break.

 

There's an incisive native American perspective on the segment here.

This rant is just stupid without a real point.

 

Because some teams are named after animals and done after warriors, you think the intent is to compare people to animals?

 

Not every city has a symbol like "maple leaves" or "hurricanes" to hang their hat on. Conversely, not very city has a history involving brave Indians or an animal the state is known for. Panthers, Gators, Bruins are now deliberate symbols intended to equate native Indians to animals?

 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

And?

 

See my response to Quickbeam, below.

 

 

It was an awesome segment.

 

I thought it was boring. A real letdown. After all the "controversy" before it aired, I was expecting something a lot more interesting. It was a yawnfest.

 

 

Jon Stewart and the guy who did the interviews spent a lot of time describing the controversy about the segment and presenting the complaint made by the interviewees who defend the Redskins name. The complaint was hyped by the Washington Post. Those interviewees acknowledged that they wouldn't hesitate to continue supporting the team if the name changed; they also acknowledged that the name has been changed in the past and many other aspects of the franchise (the location, the song, the owner etc) have been changed MULTIPLE times. There is nothing sacred about this damned silly name.

 

You were doing OK until that last sentence. Here's a clue: Nobody here has suggested there's anything "sacred" about the name. The point has been how stupid it is to pretend there's anything "wrong" with it. And that remains true.

 

 

The segment did not display any confrontational scenes involving the Redskins name aficionados and the native American activists. The segment did not humiliate the Redskins name defenders. It gave them the chance to state their views. It acknowledged their complaint about the 'debate' part of the segment.

 

This is the only part you got right.

 

 

I liked the point that the NFL mascots are either animals or references to native Americans. That does rather puncture the illusion that these names are "honouring" native Americans. To be considered on a par with animals is not a compliment. It is patronizing.

 

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

 

As usual, you're just plain wrong, LOL. First off, it simply isn't true that NFL mascots are either animals or native Americans. What about the Vikings? The Patriots? The Buccaneers? The Packers? The Titans? The Cowboys? The 49ers? The Steelers? Etc.

 

And in any case, you miss the point completely: Even in those cases where they do use animal names, they deliberately choose fierce, strong, noble animals like "Eagles" and "Bears" and "Lions" and "Broncos" and so forth. Just as nobody names their teams the "Cowards" or the "Sissies" or the "Weaklings", by the same token nobody chooses animal names like the "Kittens" or the "Bunny Rabbits" or the "Tadpoles".

 

So it remains a fact that those who use native American names are honoring native Americans. It matters not a whit how often you deny something so obviously true.

 

 

It was funny to see the footage of fans at the game behaving like drunken idiots and wearing those feather hats. Their faces had to be pixellated because they got defensive while they were being filmed. It's appropriate that their faces were blurred like criminals because they were committing offences against good taste. FFS - playing up the whole 'noble savage' stereotype is meant to be an homage to First Peoples? Give.Me.A.Break.

 

Now you're just displaying your ignorance - ALL teams have fanatical followers who dress up in silly outfits, paint their faces in team colors, get drunk in the parking lot, etc. Have you never actually watched an NFL game? It isn't just Redskins fans.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Well the segment just aired. I just finished watching it.

 

Did anybody else see it?

 

B)

 

I've got it DVR'd to watch tonight. I can't stay up late enough to watch it live and ever since they changed the website, I can't stream it on my phone anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

As usual, you're just plain wrong, LOL. First off, it simply isn't true that NFL mascots are either animals or native Americans. What about the Vikings? The Patriots? The Buccaneers? The Packers? The Titans? The Cowboys? The 49ers? The Steelers? Etc.

 

And not just animals and people. The Jets? The Browns? (Technically, Browns are named after a specific person. Most people think of the color, though).

 

And in any case, you miss the point completely: Even in those cases where they do use animal names, they deliberately choose fierce, strong, noble animals like "Eagles" and "Bears" and "Lions" and "Broncos" and so forth. Just as nobody names their teams the "Cowards" or the "Sissies" or the "Weaklings", by the same token nobody chooses animal names like the "Kittens" or the "Bunny Rabbits" or the "Tadpoles".

 

Yeah, Dolphins only seem playful. They're really viscious, murderous beasts. And Cardinals will pluck your eyes out while you sleep.

Edited by lyria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

Just as nobody names their teams the "Cowards" or the "Sissies" or the "Weaklings", by the same token nobody chooses animal names like the "Kittens" or the "Bunny Rabbits" or the "Tadpoles".

 

Benson High School in Omaha, Nebraska, is the "Bunnies". Well, now it's the "Mighty Bunnies". Story goes that the first principal or some such looked out the window when he first entered the school and saw a field of rabbits.

 

Benson is in north Omaha. The majority of the students are black. A good 85% or more. No one is clamoring to have the school mascot changed from the Bunnies, if you know what I mean.

 

Sadly, my old high school changed from the Indians to the Patriots awhile back. Though the giant mural of an Indian chief is still on the gymnasium wall. Then again, high school was the biggest waste of four years of my life. So whatever.

 

Oh, and something that John Stewart is a douchebag and I don't watch the Daily Show. So... whatever.

 

benson_mighty_bunnies_logo.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

It was an awesome segment.

 

Jon Stewart and the guy who did the interviews spent a lot of time describing the controversy about the segment and presenting the complaint made by the interviewees who defend the Redskins name. The complaint was hyped by the Washington Post. Those interviewees acknowledged that they wouldn't hesitate to continue supporting the team if the name changed; they also acknowledged that the name has been changed in the past and many other aspects of the franchise (the location, the song, the owner etc) have been changed MULTIPLE times. There is nothing sacred about this damned silly name.

 

The segment did not display any confrontational scenes involving the Redskins name aficionados and the native American activists. The segment did not humiliate the Redskins name defenders. It gave them the chance to state their views. It acknowledged their complaint about the 'debate' part of the segment.

 

I liked the point that the NFL mascots are either animals or references to native Americans. That does rather puncture the illusion that these names are "honouring" native Americans. To be considered on a par with animals is not a compliment. It is patronizing.

 

It was funny to see the footage of fans at the game behaving like drunken idiots and wearing those feather hats. Their faces had to be pixellated because they got defensive while they were being filmed. It's appropriate that their faces were blurred like criminals because they were committing offences against good taste. FFS - playing up the whole 'noble savage' stereotype is meant to be an homage to First Peoples? Give.Me.A.Break.

 

There's an incisive native American perspective on the segment here.

 

 

What's even funnier is how you don't realize the Redskins logo was not only designed by an Indian but also approved by counsel of TRIBAL CHIEFS!. If animals could talk do you think they would like watching one of there own being paraded around on a leash or having to wear a muzzle? B.T.W. if you knew a damn thing about Indians animals are very much part of there culture and symbolic for them. Hell, a number even have family names such as Spotted Bear, or Eagle Heart.

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyn
I liked the point that the NFL mascots are either animals or references to native Americans.

 

:rofl:

 

Once again you are completely and totally clueless, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

And we thank you for that, we need the laughs foreigner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quickbeam

What's even funnier is how you don't realize the Redskins logo was not only designed by an Indian but also approved by counsel of TRIBAL CHIEFS!. If animals could talk do you think they would like watching one of there own being paraded around on a leash or having to wear a muzzle? B.T.W. if you knew a damn thing about Indians animals are very much part of there culture and symbolic for them. Hell, a number even have family names such as Spotted Bear, or Eagle Heart.

 

Oki

 

The problem is when native Americans are used as mascots - just like animals, inanimate objects, and colours.

 

That would be such a profound honour, I am sure.

 

I think the paternalistic mindset in people who defend this Redskins name is deeply ingrained. They were brought up in a culture where this kind of 'noble savage' BS was acceptable behaviour. Now they are being asked to think critically and question their assumptions, and they are falling short. Lyria included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

The problem is when native Americans are used as mascots - just like animals, inanimate objects, and colours.

 

That would be such a profound honour, I am sure.

 

I think the paternalistic mindset in people who defend this Redskins name is deeply ingrained. They were brought up in a culture where this kind of 'noble savage' BS was acceptable behaviour. Now they are being asked to think critically and question their assumptions, and they are falling short. Lyria included.

 

LOLOLOLOL

 

You clearly have no intention of dropping the childish pretense there's something "dishonorable" about being considered admirable, brave, strong, noble, etc.

 

Well take heart! At least you will never have to experience the excruciating, heart-wrenching trauma of being identified with a sports team (Oh the HORROR), because as has been pointed out many times, teams are never named the "Morons" or "Wussies" or "Mindless Toadies". So you're safe.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash
Make_It_Stop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

The problem is when native Americans are used as mascots - just like animals, inanimate objects, and colours.

 

That would be such a profound honour, I am sure.

 

I think the paternalistic mindset in people who defend this Redskins name is deeply ingrained. They were brought up in a culture where this kind of 'noble savage' BS was acceptable behaviour. Now they are being asked to think critically and question their assumptions, and they are falling short. Lyria included.

 

 

And you are falling short in not having the guts to enlighten us why not only an Indian designed it, but it was approved by a counsel of TRIBAL ELDERS/A.K.A. CHIEFS!

Come on, explain that to me. You don't even realize that animals are extremely spiritually important and connected with Indian religion, beliefs and culture.

Many Indians draw strength(spiritually) from various animals, ie Bears, Bison, Wolves. Get it know? You don't know jack sh$t about Indians, there beliefs or even the 'offensive' Mascott and don't have the guts or intelligence to answer any of the questions I have asked you(as usual).

 

 

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyn
I liked the point that the NFL mascots are either animals or references to native Americans.

 

The problem is when native Americans are used as mascots - just like animals, inanimate objects, and colours.

 

:lol3:

 

Well, which one is it foreigner?

 

I think the paternalistic mindset in people who defend this Redskins name is deeply ingrained. They were brought up in a culture where this kind of 'noble savage' BS was acceptable behaviour. Now they are being asked to think critically and question their assumptions, and they are falling short.

 

How do you know that foreigner? You've never been here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Just watched the South Park episode on the subject. Not their best, but funny enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

Wait, wait..... So all Native names are offensive now? I guess Kansas City better stick with the Chefs. And the part about equating it with other names and that being a slam is just BS - I may hate the team, but the Patriots clearly have an awesome name. They're named after those brave men who started a revolution!

 

Look, I can see where the offense of the Redskins name is coming from. Seriously, I do. No matter what it also is, it is still a racial slur and some are going to be offended by it. But it doesn't matter. If anyone is offended, they can root for the other team or even not watch football. There are Native Americans who won't use a 20 dollar bill because of Andrew Jackson, but he's still considered one of our greatest Presidents. I get it.

 

That said, Snyder is going to eventually be forced to change the name. We're just too politically correct these days to let it slide. He should change it on his terms, before he's forced to, to maximize the profits and win the PR war. Isn't that what football is all about? The money? I doubt Snyder bought the team for love of the game. It's not worth falling on your sword over, and I say that as a fan. I was a fan of the Skins from childhood until Baltimore got a team again, and the Redskins remain my favorite NFC team. If they had to change their name, they'd still be my favorite NFC team.

Edited by lyria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The problem is when native Americans are used as mascots - just like animals, inanimate objects, and colours.

 

That would be such a profound honour, I am sure.

 

I think the paternalistic mindset in people who defend this Redskins name is deeply ingrained. They were brought up in a culture where this kind of 'noble savage' BS was acceptable behaviour. Now they are being asked to think critically and question their assumptions, and they are falling short. Lyria included.

How many more variations are you going to try?

 

1 - Charge racism. Failed to connect. Loss.

2 - Indians hate it. NGGGGGG. Indians designed it.

3 - It's patronizing. Miss to the left.

4 - Indians are being equated to animals. Nope. Teams have all kinds of symbols, and they're about bravery anyway. Another spectacular fail.

5 - IT'S CULTURE! Americans are deeply ingrained morons. This one has a chance -- about 52% of voters proved so last time round.

 

You don't see a "plank from your own eye" irony in any of your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash
Look, I can see where the offense of the Redskins name is coming from.

 

The overwhelming majority of the "offended" are not even football fans. They are professional grievance mongers. My personal belief is that this is an attack on football which is another front in the war on American culture.

 

Seriously, I do. No matter what it also is, it is still a racial slur and some are going to be offended by it.

 

Redskin is a reference to war paint not skin color. It has been co-opted by an agenda. Which is the war on American culture. Revisionist history and ignorance at full show.

 

But it doesn't matter. If anyone is offended, they can root for the other team or even not watch football.

 

On this we agree.

 

We've veered a long way off course on how the Daily Show ambushes guests and how Jon Stewart is the highest paid troll in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

The overwhelming majority of the "offended" are not even football fans. They are professional grievance mongers. My personal belief is that this is an attack on football which is another front in the war on American culture.

 

 

 

Redskin is a reference to war paint not skin color. It has been co-opted by an agenda. Which is the war on American culture. Revisionist history and ignorance at full show.

 

I agree, but nevertheless it has been used as a slur and some people take it that way. You really can't tell someone what they should and shouldn't be offended by! I've been following this issue pretty closely and understand the various arguments - it's our local team after all! Both sides have a point. The offensiveness shouldn't matter, as I've said, but I can understand how some people are offended.

 

On this we agree.

 

We've veered a long way off course on how the Daily Show ambushes guests and how Jon Stewart is the highest paid troll in the world.

 

Lol, yes we have.

Edited by lyria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

It was an awesome segment.

 

Jon Stewart and the guy who did the interviews spent a lot of time describing the controversy about the segment and presenting the complaint made by the interviewees who defend the Redskins name. The complaint was hyped by the Washington Post. Those interviewees acknowledged that they wouldn't hesitate to continue supporting the team if the name changed; they also acknowledged that the name has been changed in the past and many other aspects of the franchise (the location, the song, the owner etc) have been changed MULTIPLE times. There is nothing sacred about this damned silly name.

 

The segment did not display any confrontational scenes involving the Redskins name aficionados and the native American activists. The segment did not humiliate the Redskins name defenders. It gave them the chance to state their views. It acknowledged their complaint about the 'debate' part of the segment.

 

I liked the point that the NFL mascots are either animals or references to native Americans. That does rather puncture the illusion that these names are "honouring" native Americans. To be considered on a par with animals is not a compliment. It is patronizing.

 

It was funny to see the footage of fans at the game behaving like drunken idiots and wearing those feather hats. Their faces had to be pixellated because they got defensive while they were being filmed. It's appropriate that their faces were blurred like criminals because they were committing offences against good taste. FFS - playing up the whole 'noble savage' stereotype is meant to be an homage to First Peoples? Give.Me.A.Break.

 

There's an incisive native American perspective on the segment here.

 

Really? So mascots are ONLY Indians OR Animals? We have no greek mythos based mascots? Like the Hoplites? No Pirate based mascots? I guess we should go and see if we are humiliating the pirates of somalia with our representation of them as a team mascot. Your ignorance allows you to over simplify the entire issue. Some high schools use Fliers as their mascot (OMG I should be offended, that a school has taken my chosen profession and made it into something that they want to emulate!) Where is Johnny Cochran when I need him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Another thing, why are "Indians" all up in arms about the Washington Redskins and NOT the Kansas City Chiefs? Another humiliating indian exploitation name!

 

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KansasCityChiefs/posts

 

Oh that's right because you pick your fights to intimidate only one group at a time. You are the first coach of Sarcastiball.

 

Sarcastaball01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quickbeam

Really? So mascots are ONLY Indians OR Animals? We have no greek mythos based mascots? Like the Hoplites? No Pirate based mascots? I guess we should go and see if we are humiliating the pirates of somalia with our representation of them as a team mascot. Your ignorance allows you to over simplify the entire issue. Some high schools use Fliers as their mascot (OMG I should be offended, that a school has taken my chosen profession and made it into something that they want to emulate!) Where is Johnny Cochran when I need him!

 

Pick your battles, Taggart. There are more important things to fight for than Dan Synder's right to be a jerk. The easiest solution here is for the jerk to stop being a jerk. It would be a good business move too.

 

Native Americans have been exploited and degraded for centuries. Isn't it time the rest of us respected their wish for something so basic as courtesy?

Edited by Quickbeam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

I agree, but nevertheless it has been used as a slur and some people take it that way. You really can't tell someone what they should and shouldn't be offended by! I've been following this issue pretty closely and understand the various arguments - it's our local team after all! Both sides have a point. The offensiveness shouldn't matter, as I've said, but I can understand how some people are offended.

 

People who use the word "my" and "mine" are offensive. By using those words, they show their ignorance and how they covet material possessions. Those people are evil. We should force them to quit use "my" and "mine". Also, they need to forfeit all of "their" "personal" "possessions". How rude are they!

 

You know... the words "sky" and "water" and "the" are very offensive. Those people need to shut up as well.

 

While I can "understand" why people are "offended", a lot of those "people" need to GTFO themselves. I'm sick of the perpetually "offended". Their hive mentality and twitchiness are 99.5% of what's wrong with the world. Not people who play for or support the Washington Redskins.

 

I don't hear calls to change my hometown from Omaha. Maybe we should. Drown out the history of the tribes until they are mere fairy tales like leprechauns, unicorns, and freedom-loving Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

Pick your battles, Taggart. There are more important things to fight for than Dan Synder's right to be a jerk.

 

Yeah, like a terror network coordinating to publicly murder innocent Australians. You spend way more time telling Americans how to think and the Scottish how to vote than on issues in your own backyard.

 

You have zero credibility. You are a fraud. I can't figure out why my "ignore" isn't working. Rarely do I read or reply to your ignorant rants. But I'm feeling very testy this morning.

 

Toss off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lyria

While I can "understand" why people are "offended", a lot of those "people" need to GTFO themselves. I'm sick of the perpetually "offended". Their hive mentality and twitchiness are 99.5% of what's wrong with the world. Not people who play for or support the Washington Redskins.

 

I couldn't agree with you more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyn

Pick your battles, Taggart. There are more important things to fight for than Dan Synder's right to be a jerk. The easiest solution here is for the jerk to stop being a jerk. It would be a good business move too.

 

Native Americans have been exploited and degraded for centuries. Isn't it time the rest of us respected their wish for something so basic as courtesy?

 

:lol3:

 

Say foreigner, you still haven't answered my question, what sport do the Washington Redskins play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...