- Dec 1, 2012
- 23,318
- 11,740
Irsay is overlyhands-ona weirdo for an owner.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Irsay is overlyhands-ona weirdo for an owner.
Good article. It still baffles me that folks are just riding with the offensive-to-native americans assumption. People want to make a stand on something where there's no stand to be made and it's not even the group that's supposedly being degraded by the team name.
Stupid article. The ol "this person wasn't offended so no one else should be" line, like there aren't hundreds of Native Americans who HAVE made their feelings known.
It's like the classic post you see on sites like Reddit (they love that type of s**t) where someone says "Well I'm Black, and I really think that it's our own fault white people use the N word, because we use it to each other. And we don't know how to behave anyway!"
Stupid article is an understatement. I had to check and make sure I wasn't on the Onion.
Rick Reilly has been a joke for over a decade now but this is probably a new low for him.
They colts should give Luck a bye week no reason to put him behind that line against that defensive front.
The entire column is basically the equivalent of "So I talked to my black friend....."So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?
I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
He just picks and chooses what he feels supports his point. Here's Tom Cole, one of the most conservative members of Congress (and only Native Americans), saying they should change their name: http://www.rollcall.com/news/cole_change_offensive_********_moniker-220851-1.htmlSo the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?
I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?
I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
He just picks and chooses what he feels supports his point. Here's Tom Cole, one of the most conservative members of Congress (and only Native Americans), saying they should change their name: http://www.rollcall.com/news/cole_change_offensive_********_moniker-220851-1.html
“Come on. This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet,” he said. “It is very, very, very offensive. This isn’t like warriors or chiefs. It’s not a term of respect, and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don’t happen to live around Washington, D.C.”
I think the Annenberg poll is quality evidence, but it's a strange poll. It was conducted over a year, in 2003-2004 because the sample size was so small. You don't know if attitudes have changed since the issue has come more to the forefront. You don't know who the poll actually termed as "Native American".
And he should cut with the "the name was meant to honor them" crap. He fails to mention that the original owner of the ******** was one of the most hateful racists around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Racism. No one believes that he named his team to "honor" these people.
He says no one complains about the Cleveland Indians? That's just patently untrue. That logo is always mentioned in the same breath as the name "********".
And objectively, this issue aside Rick Reilly just sucks. he sucks. vomits onto the page. What a hack.
So the stats and the survey's in the article are worthless?
I don't read or hear something (especially from ESPN) and take that to be gospel like a lot of people do, as I can definitely discern what's useful information and what's simply an opinion. Take out the BS, which is the only thing you two seem to see, and then look at the legitimite point being made. Who really cares about the name skins of red? And where's the justification and proof that it's actually offensive to anyone?
He just picks and chooses what he feels supports his point. Here's Tom Cole, one of the most conservative members of Congress (and only Native Americans), saying they should change their name: http://www.rollcall.com/news/cole_change_offensive_********_moniker-220851-1.html
“Come on. This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet,” he said. “It is very, very, very offensive. This isn’t like warriors or chiefs. It’s not a term of respect, and it’s needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don’t happen to live around Washington, D.C.”
I think the Annenberg poll is quality evidence, but it's a strange poll. It was conducted over a year, in 2003-2004 because the sample size was so small. You don't know if attitudes have changed since the issue has come more to the forefront. You don't know who the poll actually termed as "Native American".
And he should cut with the "the name was meant to honor them" crap. He fails to mention that the original owner of the ******** was one of the most hateful racists around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall#Racism. No one believes that he named his team to "honor" these people.
He says no one complains about the Cleveland Indians? That's just patently untrue. That logo is always mentioned in the same breath as the name "********".
And objectively, this issue aside Rick Reilly just sucks. he sucks. vomits onto the page. What a hack.
Stop making sense.
Coltsfan: I love the Colts but saying you dont see the Colts losing to the Niners is crazy.
I'm scared man. lol
i think the goal of your game this weekend should be just to escape with andrew luck in one piece...
Joe Thomas to Denver gaining steam...
@ people defending the Red**** name.
I don't care what journalist said what.
That is an offensive name.
PERIOD.
My best friend is half-native american. He just got married 2 months ago. I talked to a lot of the native american side of his family.
They all said its one of the worst things you can call them. They hate it. But they feel helpless. They know their voices don't mean much to mainstream America, so they don't even know what they can do about it.
It's not just a "media-driven agenda."
This is real.
This actually offends Native Americans.
I dont care if 5 showed up to protest in Green Bay or 5 million.
They gotta change the name man. They just have to. How can you know that you are offending an entire culture with your team name and be arrogant enough to not care?
Huh? Where are you seeing this?
Joe Thomas to Denver gaining steam...
Respect you and your opinions on this site. I just think you are dead wrong on this one.I'll have to read all this when I get home.
Everyone agree Joe Thomas is the best active LT in the game?
Coltsfan: I love the Colts but saying you dont see the Colts losing to the Niners is crazy.
I'm scared man. lol