Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post
    I think the greater point here is even if it was about the Redskins, the simple fact of it is, challenging the legality of a law does not require anyone, the court or the petitioner, to make a decision or a statement on whether or not the law was even broken. If I get taken to court for something tomorrow, I can petition the court that the law I'm being prosecuted under is invalid regardless of my position or the court's determination on whether or not I actually even broke the law as it's written.
    Agreed, 10 char

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post
    Philosophically, I agree with you. In a perfect world no slur or hateful remark would have any power because they would all be denied. However that's not the case. It may hold no power on your but that may not be true for someone who still has memories of their family losing everything going to an internment camp, or who has directly experienced anything ranging from violence to a lost job on the basis of their racial appearance.
    We both know we don't live in a perfect world. All I'm saying is that people need to accept that there are jackasses, racists, and all sorts of other horrible people out there.

    Getting bent out of shape over someone using any racial slur is silly, when all it does, is show the true ignorance of someone else's character. Not your own.
    Have I been discriminated against? You bet!
    Am I going to hold a grudge? Not really, I may not ever patronize that establishment, or buy that company's products, or whatever the case may be.

    In a world where most everyone only seems to care about is $$, voting with my wallet works just fine for me.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Freighter View Post
    Redskins is a slur? Slur for what? People who have spent too much time in the sun and look like lobsters due to sun burn?
    Could you maybe not be some caricature of a clueless Asian who doesn't acknowledge the existence of other ethnic groups besides "white" and whatever you happen to be? You do have access to Google, right?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Resurgo View Post
    We both know we don't live in a perfect world. All I'm saying is that people need to accept that there are jackasses, racists, and all sorts of other horrible people out there.

    Getting bent out of shape over someone using any racial slur is silly, when all it does, is show the true ignorance of someone else's character. Not your own.
    Have I been discriminated against? You bet!
    Am I going to hold a grudge? Not really, I may not ever patronize that establishment, or buy that company's products, or whatever the case may be.

    In a world where most everyone only seems to care about is $$, voting with my wallet works just fine for me.
    The problem is you're denying that the words have power when they in fact do.

    I will agree there should not be legal consequences for using a slur. In fact, I would go to war to defend that principle. However, as a matter of course, use of such words without reprisal or mitigation of any sort normalizes the thinking behind them. When I call someone a slant or a redskin, the implication is that the oppression that spawned those terms is acceptable or at least inconsequential. That line of thinking extends to action. First someone's a slant or a chink. It's not long before they're one of those chinks or just a damn slant. It's a collective social will, and it's ugly. Before you know it you're at the point where that person is considered less than they would otherwise be, and at that point, you're literally talking about someone being passed over for a job because they're lesser on that basis. When used in the right context (or perhaps wrong context is the better way to look at it), these words dehumanize people and justify mistreatment.

  5. #25
    I have a better idea, get rid of trademarks, and the government won't have to get involved at all.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I have a better idea, get rid of trademarks, and the government won't have to get involved at all.
    Because that's a reasonable solution.

    Said nobody ever.

  7. #27
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post
    When used in the right context (or perhaps wrong context is the better way to look at it), these words dehumanize people and justify mistreatment.
    That's the whole reason those terms exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post
    The problem is you're denying that the words have power when they in fact do.

    I will agree there should not be legal consequences for using a slur. In fact, I would go to war to defend that principle. However, as a matter of course, use of such words without reprisal or mitigation of any sort normalizes the thinking behind them. When I call someone a slant or a redskin, the implication is that the oppression that spawned those terms is acceptable or at least inconsequential. That line of thinking extends to action. First someone's a slant or a chink. It's not long before they're one of those chinks or just a damn slant. It's a collective social will, and it's ugly. Before you know it you're at the point where that person is considered less than they would otherwise be, and at that point, you're literally talking about someone being passed over for a job because they're lesser on that basis. When used in the right context (or perhaps wrong context is the better way to look at it), these words dehumanize people and justify mistreatment.
    It's almost a chicken before the egg concept. I get what you're saying. It's just that, as far as what I've experienced, people (by and large) look for any opportunity to set themselves apart. Be exclusionary, so to speak. Even insofar as religion goes. Only catholics believe they get to go to heaven. The other religions... well we'll just save whoever we can.

    People already think that way (at least that I see)... giving in to those types of stereotypes just allows me to figure out who the ones I want to stay away from are, faster.

    tldr:
    You're saying use of those words leads to dehumanizing.
    I'm just saying people look for excuses to do that already on a day to day basis.

    Don't get me wrong, I agree it's ugly. I'd much rather see how ugly you are up front.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Because that's a reasonable solution.

    Said nobody ever.
    It's better than a bureaucracy wanting to determine what can, and cannot be used by specific people in regards to names. If I want to have start a restaurant called "Trump is a Douchebag," I don't want the government trying to stand in my way.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's better than a bureaucracy wanting to determine what can, and cannot be used by specific people in regards to names. If I want to have start a restaurant called "Trump is a Douchebag," I don't want the government trying to stand in my way.
    And if your restaurants become successful, you'll have no way of shutting down the knock-off "Trump is a Douchebag" restaurants that pop up and are identical to yours in every way. Where your best solution is to hope that they just steal some business from you, and at worst they can completely destroy your brand.

    Trademark/Patent law is a mess, but it's still very necessary in modern economies.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    And if your restaurants become successful, you'll have no way of shutting down the knock-off "Trump is a Douchebag" restaurants that pop up and are identical to yours in every way. Where your best solution is to hope that they just steal some business from you, and at worst they can completely destroy your brand.

    Trademark/Patent law is a mess, but it's still very necessary in modern economies.
    Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

    After all, I'd be fine if every restaurant were a Trump is a Douchebag (or a Taco Bell).

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

    After all, I'd be fine if every restaurant were a Trump is a Douchebag (or a Taco Bell).
    Except that you would be making no money from all the knock-offs, and they'd be both potentially stealing your customers away or driving them away by harming your restaurants brand/reputation.

    Do you find that acceptable? That you could go to a store and not be sure which brand of Hershey's was actually the real one? Which can of Coke was actually Coke and not some cheap knockoff using an identical can and name? Is that Honda you're buying actually a Honda or is it some cheap knockoff likely to fall apart in months?

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's better than a bureaucracy wanting to determine what can, and cannot be used by specific people in regards to names. If I want to have start a restaurant called "Trump is a Douchebag," I don't want the government trying to stand in my way.
    Do you even know the purpose of a trademark?

    Trademarks don't exist to prevent you from starting a restaurant called trump is a douchebag or anything of the sort. They exist so if you open up "Trump is a Douchebag" and it's wildly successful, someone else can't turn around and open up another "trump is a douchebag" and steal your customers because people think they are you, or serve bad food and damage your restaurant's success because people again assume it was your food.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

    After all, I'd be fine if every restaurant were a Trump is a Douchebag (or a Taco Bell).
    Flattery doesn't pay the bills.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except that you would be making no money from all the knock-offs, and they'd be both potentially stealing your customers away or driving them away by harming your restaurants brand/reputation.

    Do you find that acceptable? That you could go to a store and not be sure which brand of Hershey's was actually the real one? Which can of Coke was actually Coke and not some cheap knockoff using an identical can and name? Is that Honda you're buying actually a Honda or is it some cheap knockoff likely to fall apart in months?
    Actually, I am fine with that. Then again, I also understand most people wouldn't be, which is why trademarks exist. What I do not understand, is the desire to add censorship into the mix when it comes to trademarks.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post
    Do you even know the purpose of a trademark?

    Trademarks don't exist to prevent you from starting a restaurant called trump is a douchebag or anything of the sort. They exist so if you open up "Trump is a Douchebag" and it's wildly successful, someone else can't turn around and open up another "trump is a douchebag" and steal your customers because people think they are you, or serve bad food and damage your restaurant's success because people again assume it was your food.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Flattery doesn't pay the bills.
    As I have shown, I know exactly why trademarks, copyrights, and patents exist. I still see no need to have the government include censorship among their services when applying them.

  15. #35
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post
    The problem is you're denying that the words have power when they in fact do.
    No, they don't.
    Words do not have any power.
    However, as a matter of course, use of such words without reprisal or mitigation of any sort normalizes the thinking behind them.
    No, they don't - You think that the lack of social opprobrium moves society in a direction, it is in fact the reverse.
    You are arguing that social opprobrium should be used to force your opinion on others.
    Actually that's not it, you are so far gone, you think that's the natural state (instead of an arbitrary one).
    Last edited by mmocfd561176b9; 2017-06-19 at 09:39 PM.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    That's the whole reason those terms exist.
    I don't disagree. Honestly I only put it there to head off the inevitable, "but is it racist when an abc calls another abc the slur?" trolling.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by GoblinP View Post
    No, they don't.
    Words do not have any power.
    The collective reaction of human beings and society to speech for the entirety of recorded history would suggest otherwise.

    You thinking something should be the case does not magically make it so.

    If I call someone the n-word and it elicits a predictable response from someone, that is power. Maybe they can choose whether or not to be bothered by it, maybe they can't. Human beings are imperfect creatures vulnerable to impulse and emotions that they cannot control on an individual basis. Hell, even you can control yours, there's nothing you can do about everyone else who is affected.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Actually, I am fine with that. Then again, I also understand most people wouldn't be, which is why trademarks exist. What I do not understand, is the desire to add censorship into the mix when it comes to trademarks.

    - - - Updated - - -



    As I have shown, I know exactly why trademarks, copyrights, and patents exist. I still see no need to have the government include censorship among their services when applying them.
    When you say things like "I have a better idea, get rid of trademarks, and the government won't have to get involved at all" it becomes profoundly apparent that, no you do not. Try not to move the goalposts here. You said you don't see a point for trademarks existing, not you don't see a reason or governments to censor trademarks. Nobody's even arguing that.
    Last edited by Alfador; 2017-06-19 at 09:38 PM.

  17. #37
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post

    The collective reaction of human beings and society to speech for the entirety of recorded history would suggest otherwise.
    yes, if only Hitler had referred to the Jews as Jews instead of Kikes, we wouldn't have had the holocaust.

    You thinking something should be the case does not magically make it so.
    No, Nigger has no intrinsic power over over another random word.
    If I call someone the n-word and it elicits a predictable response from someone, that is power.
    Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the actual word.
    Words are words, you choosing to react to them is on you - For nigger to have intrinsic power, it needs to have said power over everyone.
    Last edited by mmocfd561176b9; 2017-06-19 at 09:48 PM.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Alfador View Post
    I don't disagree. Honestly I only put it there to head off the inevitable, "but is it racist when an abc calls another abc the slur?" trolling.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The collective reaction of human beings and society to speech for the entirety of recorded history would suggest otherwise.

    You thinking something should be the case does not magically make it so.

    If I call someone the n-word and it elicits a predictable response from someone, that is power. Maybe they can choose whether or not to be bothered by it, maybe they can't. Human beings are imperfect creatures vulnerable to impulse and emotions that they cannot control on an individual basis. Hell, even you can control yours, there's nothing you can do about everyone else who is affected.

    - - - Updated - - -



    When you say things like "I have a better idea, get rid of trademarks, and the government won't have to get involved at all" it becomes profoundly apparent that, no you do not. Try not to move the goalposts here. You said you don't see a point for trademarks existing, not you don't see a reason or governments to censor trademarks. Nobody's even arguing that.
    I get it just fine, I simply want the world to turn to shit a little bit, so that people will stop trying to rule over others. Get rid of them, and there is no need for government involvement. Good times.

    And I never said there was no point in them, that's putting words into my mouth.

  19. #39
    This was all around good decision.

    Though it's amazing that, even with this being one of the easiest to understand as far as language goes, people twisting it to confirm what the need confirmed.

  20. #40
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except that you would be making no money from all the knock-offs, and they'd be both potentially stealing your customers away or driving them away by harming your restaurants brand/reputation.

    Do you find that acceptable? That you could go to a store and not be sure which brand of Hershey's was actually the real one? Which can of Coke was actually Coke and not some cheap knockoff using an identical can and name? Is that Honda you're buying actually a Honda or is it some cheap knockoff likely to fall apart in months?
    I feel like deliberately copying an existing product could be flagged as a form of fraud.

    If someone wanted to advertise their restaurant as "Better than Applebee's", or something, that's the kind of trademark use I don't think needs to be protected. Knockoffs pretending to BE you, fraud, other people using your trademark as a reference, should be totally fine.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •